There are some thoughts about the choice of language versus library in
P2000R2 section 5.2 "Library and Language":
"If we can supply a feature as a library, we should do so because it is
easier to validate a design through
experimentation, the facility will be available to users earlier, and a
library is usually easier to specify in
isolation."
Yes I’m aware of this position. However to be fair, we have had std::vector (almost) in its current form since the dawn of the STL.
How much is enough time before a library feature proves itself so fundamentally useful to a language that it is deemed validated?
Many (almost all?) other successful languages build in such fundamentals very early in their lives. And it is not uncommon for libraries to become core elsewhere.
Ones position on this will of course depend on one’s vision of what C++ wants to be, and I appreciate that there is a spectrum of view here.
Do we want C++ to be essentially C with a few twists and a slightly more restrictive memory model, or do we want it to be a language in its own right?
At present it seems to me that it is neither, with language features depending on library types and library features depending on compiler intrinsics.
I’ll stop here before I inflame too many tempers. A good jester knows when the court is about to lose its sense of humour. But I don’t think it does us any harm to think the unthinkable from time to time.
Thank you everyone for your attention.
Roger.
--
Std-Discussion mailing list
Std-Discussion@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion