Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!mcnc!thorin!cezanne!leech
From: leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Standard libraries (was Re: What C++ Compiler should I buy?)
Message-ID: <17530@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 90 03:21:16 GMT
References: <sean.657840642@s.ms.uky.edu> <3072@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <39546@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <17523@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <39549@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech)
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 20

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.