What of it?

> Those functions are completely non-standard and should be avoided in portable programs.

Sure, it has not been standardized, it is not part of the standard library, so what? Did the world stop? I mean, practically speaking, who cares? Implement it, or find libraries that did. There are plenty. I posted this one because it exists for an OS; OpenBSD, since 1999. Plus, AFAIK ohash is portable enough. It consists of 2 files, and you can compile it with -std=c89. Only the bounded attribute is ignored.

If you want I could have brought up hcreate, hdestroy, and hsearch:

> The functions hcreate(), hsearch(), and hdestroy() are from SVr4, and are described in POSIX.1-2001 and POSIX.1-2008.

Happier?

I use stb myself, so I have no qualms with that. The point is rather that GP was discussing praise for C’s standard library, and even the most portable single-file include-only dependency remains just that: an external dependency that isn’t part of the C standard library (and no, posix isn’t C).

Does it make much of a difference though? Take the hyped Rust for example. Most useful stuff is in crates, i.e. an external dependency. No one seems to have a problem with that.

Personally I do not mind using libraries typically installed by the Linux distribution's package manager anyways.

If the question is whether or not I think the C standard library could be improved, then yes, I would say it could, but I do not want it to have a hash table and all sorts of stuff like that, because there are lots and lots of ways to implement them, and they might not suit my needs. C is great, because you can build it from the ground up (if you want to) to make it specifically for your use case. It gives you the building blocks. I believe I have a comment regarding this somewhere, that I like C because it does not implement stuff for you that is in some ways "generalized", which is often a bad thing. This is my problem with "it should have hash tables at least". You cannot implement it in such a way that it suits everyone's needs.

Rust not having a good standard library is a huge problem. This increases the risk of a rust codebase due to the high number of third party dependencies.

I only said that "I do not mind using libraries typically installed by the Linux distribution's package manager", which was in respect to C.

As far as Rust goes, yes, I do not like that crates are full of one-liners, and so forth. It shares the same problems that npm has. I ran cargo build on many Rust projects before. No way.