[comp.lang.c++] Standard libraries

leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (11/14/90)

In article <39549@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe
Buck) writes:
|>But there is no "standard library".  You can call what you got from AT&T
|>"standard" if you wish, but each vendor (including those who port cfront
|>to different architectures) puts a different set of capabilities in their
|>"standard library".  There are things in libg++ that AT&T doesn't supply,
|>similarly for all the others.

    stdio wasn't "standard", either. Whitesmiths (remember them?) shipped a C
compiler without stdio in the early 80s. Note their remarkable success :-) 

    The market will decide whose libraries are widely supported, and I'm
betting
on AT&T for the simple reason that most vendors look to AT&T, not GNU, for a
porting base.

|>Most of iostream's functionality is supported by stream, in any case.

	Irrelevant. Most of C++ 2.0's functionality is supported by 1.2 but that
doesn't mean I'll make my code backward compatible.