Original STL Library Documentation has been recovered and is now safe forever.
The Standard Template Library is the foundation of modern C++. The creation and publication of this code and its documentation set a new standard for the formal specification of what a computer program should do, how it should be designed and how it should be formally documented. These pages were maintained first by Silicon Graphics and then later by Hewett-Packard. In January of 2018 these pages were removed by H-P. This is a historic blunder. I have recovered the original STL Library Document and hosted them here: http://www.rrsd.com/software_development/stl/index.htm Robert Ramey
On 13 April 2018 at 01:31, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The Standard Template Library is the foundation of modern C++. [...] I have recovered the original STL Library Document and hosted them here:
Robert, Kudos! Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The Standard Template Library is the foundation of modern C++. The creation and publication of this code and its documentation set a new standard for the formal specification of what a computer program should do, how it should be designed and how it should be formally documented. These pages were maintained first by Silicon Graphics and then later by Hewett-Packard. In January of 2018 these pages were removed by H-P. This is a historic blunder. I have recovered the original STL Library Document and hosted them here:
http://www.rrsd.com/software_development/stl/index.htm
Robert Ramey
This is an excellent gift to the community! Thanks, Francesco
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 00:31, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The Standard Template Library is the foundation of modern C++. The creation and publication of this code and its documentation set a new standard for the formal specification of what a computer program should do, how it should be designed and how it should be formally documented. These pages were maintained first by Silicon Graphics and then later by Hewett-Packard. In January of 2018 these pages were removed by H-P. This is a historic blunder. I have recovered the original STL Library Document and hosted them here:
They're also on the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20171225062613/http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/ and here: http://www.martinbroadhurst.com/sgi-stl-documentation.html
On 13.04.18 01:31, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
The Standard Template Library is the foundation of modern C++. The creation and publication of this code and its documentation set a new standard for the formal specification of what a computer program should do, how it should be designed and how it should be formally documented. These pages were maintained first by Silicon Graphics and then later by Hewett-Packard. In January of 2018 these pages were removed by H-P. This is a historic blunder. I have recovered the original STL Library Document and hosted them here:
http://www.rrsd.com/software_development/stl/index.htm
Robert Ramey
Hi, First of all congratulations for providing this! I have a couple of places in the boost.test documentation that linked to sgi.com. Those are obviously today dead links. Is it now a good practice to link to your copy? Why not copying that to the boost.org website? Best, Raffi
On 9/2/18 1:36 AM, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost wrote:
Hi,
First of all congratulations for providing this! I have a couple of places in the boost.test documentation that linked to sgi.com. Those are obviously today dead links.
Is it now a good practice to link to your copy? Why not copying that to the boost.org website?
LOL - of course it should be done by boost. But who needs the hassle of proposing it on the list and going through endless discussion about it should be placed on the website, who is going to do it, how much better if would be if ..., arguments that it's outdated, etc. etc. ... ad infinitem. I downloaded from wayback machine, put on my site, posted the announcement on twitter and reddit. It took me 1/2 hour and I'm done. And now I get a little more traffic to my website at rrsd.com . Just think about that compared to the normal boost procedure. Many times trying to reach a consensus is not worth the effort. The only thing I'm waiting for is to get trolled for using the documents for personal gain. Robert Ramey
Best, Raffi
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 2 September 2018 at 17:26, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
LOL - of course it should be done by boost. But who needs the hassle of proposing it on the list and going through endless discussion about it should be placed on the website, who is going to do it, how much better if would be if ..., arguments that it's outdated, etc. etc. ... ad infinitem.
Hi Robert Firstly thanks for recovering these documents, it is obviously better that somebody does than that nobody does. However in answer to your other point you have in effect kicked the can down the road! There will come a time when your site becomes defunct and (please forgive me for being indelicate), so will you. That is why (among other reasons) these things should be done as a community in preference to an individual. The hassle of gaining consensus for something which is self-evident is the price we all pay for a community. To be fair this is a bigger problem than you, or I, or Boost. In the bowels of the Palace of Westminster are scrolls of legislation dating back hundreds of years, still readable, still "available" in some sense. At the same time digital archives from just twenty years ago are unreadable either from decay or unavailability of the software and hardware of the era to read them. On a personal level I have a modest DVD collection but no longer have a DVD player, and I'm sure this not uncommon. So maybe we should write the SGI documentation on vellum and stash it in the basement! Goodness knows what future historians will make of that. Kind Regards Rob.
On 9/2/18 2:11 PM, Robert Jones via Boost wrote:
On 2 September 2018 at 17:26, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
LOL - of course it should be done by boost. But who needs the hassle of proposing it on the list and going through endless discussion about it should be placed on the website, who is going to do it, how much better if would be if ..., arguments that it's outdated, etc. etc. ... ad infinitem.
Hi Robert
Firstly thanks for recovering these documents, it is obviously better that somebody does than that nobody does.
However in answer to your other point you have in effect kicked the can down the road! There will come a time when your site becomes defunct and (please forgive me for being indelicate), so will you.
LMAO - This topic has been broached before on this list. It can be approached from two points of view: a) I'm 70 years old. I can't last much longer so better get it done now. b) I'm 70 years old. Nothing bad has happened in 70 years, so why worry now. I'm in the a) camp. That is
why (among other reasons) these things should be done as a community in preference to an individual.
That would be better. But it doesn't often happen. It more frequently happens that someone just does it, people start using it and seeing what a great idea it is, maybe try to take credit for it, and eventually decide to credit "the community". Actually, "the community" is really just the some total accomplishments due to individual initiative. This is often forgotten for reasons I won't go into now. The hassle of gaining consensus for
something which is self-evident is the price we all pay for a community.
Right. but not everything needs consensus. Some things can just be done. Afterwards the "community" can take credit for it if it's successful.
To be fair this is a bigger problem than you, or I, or Boost.
Everything is bigger than I am. I just ignore this.
In the bowels of the Palace of Westminster are scrolls of legislation dating back hundreds of years, still readable, still "available" in some sense. At the same time digital archives from just twenty years ago are unreadable either from decay or unavailability of the software and hardware of the era to read them. On a personal level I have a modest DVD collection but no longer have a DVD player, and I'm sure this not uncommon. So maybe we should write the SGI documentation on vellum and stash it in the basement! Goodness knows what future historians will make of that.
maybe there's room for optimism. Bach's music has survived hundreds of years so intact through various iterations for technology. Hmmm - I'm not sure rap music will though - at least I hope not. Robert Ramey
Kind Regards
Rob.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 9/2/18 14:38, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 9/2/18 2:11 PM, Robert Jones via Boost wrote:
On 2 September 2018 at 17:26, Robert Ramey via Boost
<snip>
However in answer to your other point you have in effect kicked the can down the road! There will come a time when your site becomes defunct and (please forgive me for being indelicate), so will you.
LMAO - This topic has been broached before on this list. It can be approached from two points of view: a) I'm 70 years old. I can't last much longer so better get it done now. b) I'm 70 years old. Nothing bad has happened in 70 years, so why worry now.
I'm in the a) camp.
I'm not nearly as old as Robert (nor as interesting) ... but I don't have time for another long thread. So here: <https://www.boost.org/sgi/stl/> I'll get appropriate links together in the next day. michael -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com
On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 16:02:19 -0700 Michael Caisse via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 9/2/18 14:38, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 9/2/18 2:11 PM, Robert Jones via Boost wrote:
On 2 September 2018 at 17:26, Robert Ramey via Boost
<snip>
However in answer to your other point you have in effect kicked the can down the road! There will come a time when your site becomes defunct and (please forgive me for being indelicate), so will you.
LMAO - This topic has been broached before on this list. It can be approached from two points of view: a) I'm 70 years old. I can't last much longer so better get it done now. b) I'm 70 years old. Nothing bad has happened in 70 years, so why worry now.
I'm in the a) camp.
I'm not nearly as old as Robert (nor as interesting)
+1 (I sure hope we're allowed to vote)
I'll get appropriate links together in the next day.
Brevity is the soul of wit. Thanks, Michael, for once again "coming through". John
On 03.09.18 01:02, Michael Caisse via Boost wrote:
On 9/2/18 14:38, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 9/2/18 2:11 PM, Robert Jones via Boost wrote:
On 2 September 2018 at 17:26, Robert Ramey via Boost
<snip>
However in answer to your other point you have in effect kicked the can down the road! There will come a time when your site becomes defunct and (please forgive me for being indelicate), so will you.
LMAO - This topic has been broached before on this list. It can be approached from two points of view: a) I'm 70 years old. I can't last much longer so better get it done now. b) I'm 70 years old. Nothing bad has happened in 70 years, so why worry now.
I'm in the a) camp.
I'm not nearly as old as Robert (nor as interesting) ... but I don't have time for another long thread.
So here: <https://www.boost.org/sgi/stl/>
I'll get appropriate links together in the next day.
See Robert, Things are happening :) Thanks again, Raffi
participants (8)
-
Francesco Guerrieri -
John Dubchak -
Jonathan Wakely -
Mateusz Loskot -
Michael Caisse -
Raffi Enficiaud -
Robert Jones -
Robert Ramey