Re: Why is glibc not extensive?

[A via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 3:16 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 12:05 +0530, A via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my opinion, glibc should have support for maps, sets, balanced
> > binary trees, many more string functions, etc. (I know tree and hash
> > are there in glibc), so that developers don't have to implement them
> > themselves, thus saving lots of man hours all over the world.
>
> Because it will save more man hours by implementing them in a separate
> library.  You can link the library against any libc (glibc, musl,
> msvcrt, binoic, the libc on Mac OS X - I can't recall the name, ...)
> instead of adding the implementation into all libc implementations.
>

So, do glibc developers also take care of musl, msvcrt, etc.? I didn't
know this. And if not, then why would glibc developers bother about
other libc implementations.

So, implementing a balanced binary tree in 10 - 20 libraries will
consume more man hours than thousands of programmers around the world
trying to implement balanced binary tree in their C projects? I don't
believe this.

> Glibc just contains one implementation of C standard library, it's not
> "the reference implementation": there is just no such a thing in the
> world.  The proposal of changing the spec of C language or standard
> library should be sent to WG14, not here.

Hmm...I will see if I can contact them. I searched on Internet but
couldn't figure out who is the right person to contact for this. Do
you know who should I contact?

Amit