@Charles: Yes, now that we know the C++ Standard Library or its collection of libraries are not called STL can we stop calling it so? I have had this conversation with many people and noone seems to be able to give me a good explaination why they call it so, other than "well he called it that". I also wonder when STL became the Standard Template Library. "In 1992, when the project was formed, there were eight people in it. Gradually the group diminished, eventually becoming two people, me and Meng Lee. While Meng was new to the area---she was doing compilers for most of her professional life---she accepted the overall vision of generic programming research, and believed that it could lead to changing software development at the point when very few people shared this belief. I do not think that I would be able to build STL without her help. (After all, STL stands for Stepanov and Lee...) " http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/drdobbs-interview.html
Well, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the usage of STL, Charles is right. We should return the focus on the content of the video.
@felix9 Thank you for doing some research but I think you will find the only piece of literature worth quoting about C++ is the standard itself. I did acknowledge the origins of the name "STL" in my second post and queried if we were talking about the same dead implementation and it seems we are.
Felix9 is correct.
Here's another example: Stroustrup mentions in his book: "Every algorithm works with every container without the use of conversions. This framework, conventionally called the STL [Stepanov,1994], is extensible in the sense that users can easily provide containers and algorithms in addtion to the ones provided as part of the standard and have these work directly with the standard containers and algorithms" (section 3.10 from The C++ Programming Language 3rd ed.). In sections 16.2 and 16.2.3, for example, he mentions the algorithms and containers portion of the standard library are often called the STL or STL framework.