Yeah but, it's one thing to informally refer to it as the STL; people will know what you're talking about. It's another to write an article about the standard library and say "The C++ standard library (also know as the STL)," which is a false statement and implies the author doesn't know what they're talking about. That's what the parent is referring to, I think. Personally no one I know has even informally referred to it as the STL since at least C++11, so it's a bit jarring to read.
If it's a thing people call it (and they do) then surely there's no better qualification for that being something it's also known as.
It’s not a thing that anyone I know who works professionally in the field calls it. Not for at least 10 years now. Some hobbyists do, though.
One of the main contributors to the C++ standard library refers to it that way. I can also confirm that many members of the C++ Committee refer to it that way as well.
https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/c90sxa/whats_the_diffe...
That was half a decade ago. I’d be curious if they still feel that way.
From ~10 days ago [0]:
> I'm pretty good at language lawyering code patterns that the STL uses, but I only know a tiny slice of modules.
From a different comment around the same time [1]:
> Life would be easier if we could do a hard migration from classic includes to named modules, but the STL can't do that.
> <snip>
> For MSVC's STL, we have the headers (happy fun land), std.ixx (has to be built by the user, but otherwise is simple), and the separately compiled code that goes into msvcp140.dll/libcpmt.lib (scary town, complicated, always built classically in the VS Build Lab, knows nothing about modules).
[0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1jb8acg/what_is_curren...
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1jb8acg/what_is_curren...