C++ – Why STL implementation is so unreadable? How C++ could have been improved here

Virtual destructors are useful when you might potentially delete an instance of a derived class through a pointer to base class:

class Base 
{
    // some virtual methods
};

class Derived : public Base
{
    ~Derived()
    {
        // Do some important cleanup
    }
};

Here, you'll notice that I didn't declare Base's destructor to be virtual. Now, let's have a look at the following snippet:

Base *b = new Derived();
// use b
delete b; // Here's the problem!

Since Base's destructor is not virtual and b is a Base* pointing to a Derived object, delete b has undefined behaviour:

[In delete b], if the static type of the object to be deleted is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the dynamic type of the object to be deleted and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined.

In most implementations, the call to the destructor will be resolved like any non-virtual code, meaning that the destructor of the base class will be called but not the one of the derived class, resulting in a resources leak.

To sum up, always make base classes' destructors virtual when they're meant to be manipulated polymorphically.

If you want to prevent the deletion of an instance through a base class pointer, you can make the base class destructor protected and nonvirtual; by doing so, the compiler won't let you call delete on a base class pointer.

You can learn more about virtuality and virtual base class destructor in this article from Herb Sutter.

In 2008 I provided a C++98 implementation of the Singleton design pattern that is lazy-evaluated, guaranteed-destruction, not-technically-thread-safe:
Can any one provide me a sample of Singleton in c++?

Here is an updated C++11 implementation of the Singleton design pattern that is lazy-evaluated, correctly-destroyed, and thread-safe.

class S
{
    public:
        static S& getInstance()
        {
            static S    instance; // Guaranteed to be destroyed.
                                  // Instantiated on first use.
            return instance;
        }
    private:
        S() {}                    // Constructor? (the {} brackets) are needed here.

        // C++ 03
        // ========
        // Don't forget to declare these two. You want to make sure they
        // are inaccessible(especially from outside), otherwise, you may accidentally get copies of
        // your singleton appearing.
        S(S const&);              // Don't Implement
        void operator=(S const&); // Don't implement

        // C++ 11
        // =======
        // We can use the better technique of deleting the methods
        // we don't want.
    public:
        S(S const&)               = delete;
        void operator=(S const&)  = delete;

        // Note: Scott Meyers mentions in his Effective Modern
        //       C++ book, that deleted functions should generally
        //       be public as it results in better error messages
        //       due to the compilers behavior to check accessibility
        //       before deleted status
};

See this article about when to use a singleton: (not often)
Singleton: How should it be used

See this two article about initialization order and how to cope:
Static variables initialisation order
Finding C++ static initialization order problems

See this article describing lifetimes:
What is the lifetime of a static variable in a C++ function?

See this article that discusses some threading implications to singletons:
Singleton instance declared as static variable of GetInstance method, is it thread-safe?

See this article that explains why double checked locking will not work on C++:
What are all the common undefined behaviours that a C++ programmer should know about?
Dr Dobbs: C++ and The Perils of Double-Checked Locking: Part I