> In fact, if that was a valid argument, it would be for C++ not having a standard library at all
Putting aside the continuum fallacy, it's easy to understand how the C++ would be better served by having access to a collection of third-party components instead of repeating C's and even Java's mistakes.
The Boost project is a very good example, so as the wealth of JSON and XML parsers.
In fact, this lesson is so blatantly obvious that essentially all mainstream programming languages simply adopt official package managers and leave it to the community to develop and adop the components they prefer.
>Putting aside the continuum fallacy, it's easy to understand how the C++ would be better served by having access to a collection of third-party components instead of repeating C's and even Java's mistakes.
Java is very well served with its library. It would have been nowhere near as successful without it.
Re:Modern C++ Won't Save Us
by humanrebar on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @07:21AM
(#19727436)
Third party modules would be a huge mess if there weren't at least common interface types like std::string_view and std::unique_ptr.
It's not obvious to me at all.
In fact, if that was a valid argument, it would be for C++ not having a standard library at all, as everything (including vectors, strings, etc) also exists as "third-party modules".