Defects of the STL [closed]

Question

While the C++ standard libraries are very generic and efficient libraries, some minor details of their interfaces just seem disappointing.

• Algorithms cannot take containers directly. std::sort(myvec.begin(), myvec.end()); instead of std::sort(myvec); (I don't really see a valid why the second form was not provided from the beginning)

• Most of function member taking string require const char * instead const std::string&. (C++ strings are std::string, at least there should be an overload)

As far as I know these two minor defects are supposed to be corrected in the c++0x standard.

Can you see other of these minor defects ?
Why do you think it is a defect ?
Will it be corrected some day?

(of course the debate here is not for or against generic programming, nor in fact about general design issues. Just missing overloads, missing algorithms version, unhandy interface ...)

Answer 1

• Algorithms cannot take containers directly. std::sort(myvec.begin(), myvec.end()); instead of std::sort(myvec);

This one is actually a feature (it allows looping over C arrays), although, as GMan already said in a comment, it could be improved.

• Most of function member taking string require const char * instead const std::string&

This one is plain wrong, since most of the STL functions aren't members, most of them aren't functions, but function templates, and (almost?) none of them deal with strings exclusively.
(You're probably talking about file stream, which are part of the standard library, but not of that part of the standard library which stems from the STL. And, of course, there are reasons for why they were made taking const char*, although this, too, could be improved on.)

So it seems, as many who criticize the STL, you don't know enough about it to be in a position to do this. That doesn't mean there is nothing to criticize about it. But, as in other fields, before you go and do this, you should at least know why things are the way they are.