> Is it that large? i.e. is it larger than, say, Java's ? Large, yes. Larger than Java's? I don't know. It's larger than C's, that's for sure. > This is sema

> Is it that large? i.e. is it larger than, say, Java's ? Large, yes. Larger than Java's? I don't know. It's larger than C's, that's for sure. > This is semantic quibbling. You know a language more if you know its commonly-used libraries better - whether they're in the standard or not. If it's in the standard library you better bet it gets used, even if only by your dependencies. > I'm sure C programmers have that experience with a vengeance... say, everybody using different implementations of basic data structures like queues and lists and hash tables and so on. Eh, it's not too bad in C. Libraries tend not to force you to use their data structures too much, and if they do, you just don't use that library. Some, you use their data structures because that's what you included the library to get. It's certainly a problem, but dependency management is easier than having dependencies you can't make go away. > The warts are there, that's true, but they're not so bad. And use of the standard library does pay off very nicely - often removing warts in your own code. So use C++, if you like it. My post wasn't an attack on C++. C++ has its upsides. I only described the downsides of C++ because I was explaining what C is trying to avoid.