Yes, keep in mind that some platforms where QT runs do not have the library implemented, have suboptimal performance or is missing functionality. Also, binary compatibility is a big plus on QT.

A nice read about it: http://blog.codeimproved.net/posts/qtl-stl.html

Yup, QList, QVector, QString. There are a lot of reimplementations. I tend to find them a lot easier to use than the C++ counterparts. What type of problems were you having?

QString is a proper unicode-aware string with conversions to many character codecs. It doesn't really compare to std::string.

C++11 has better Unicode support than previous versions.

people don't seem too impressed with it though http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17103925/how-well-is-unic...

Nothing impossible -- just integration with the standard library algorithms and some older source code I don't want to modify. It's less difficulty and more a matter of laziness.

I agree. QList is great, it's got very straightforward methods and it's more than fast enough.

Yeps. It sucks when integrating libraries that use the STL, but otherwise they're actually much nicer in many ways. Simpler to use, at the cost of one extra pointer dereference - worth the reduced complexity and error-prone-ness, in many cases.

Yeah. iirc, most of their data structures are COW which can be nice, depending on what your looking for. And, as others have mentioned, they often have a simpler, if less generic, API to them.

The "QTL" still exists, yes. One can use the STL in their code and convert when interacting with the Qt framework (for a price paid in performance)

Yes they do. This is what happens when you need to support a myriad of compilers and OS, with different levels of language support and bugs.