Date Entered: 01-31-93 05:59
  >From: dima@Canine.CAD.UCLA.EDU (Dima Vasilyev)
  >Subject: Standard C++ library (Was: extern "C" strdup)

DI>My previous question (strdup) proved to have only one answer:
  >There's NO strdup in C++ library. If you want to have it,
  >do-it-yourself. I wonder, how many programmers spent 1 minute
  >to code it and 1 hour to make sure that makefile does link it
  >to all nesessary programs.

DI>Another surprise discovery for me was that there's NO standard
  >C++ library. Only streams can be considered as something you
  >can find with any C++ implementation, but the only thing you can
  >(possibly) rely on is cout << "Hello, world!" << endl; works.

DI>There's (buggy) class library with g++, there's (tricky) class
  >library with Borland, there's (non-standard-at-all-c++) class library
  >with Zortech, but I havn't seen in my life good or at least normal
  >c++ library that can become theoretically de-facto standard.

DI>Sure, I understand, that it is very difficult to create library in
  >growing-up language. There's no reliamble templates, and there's no
  >at all try's implementation. But there are not-too-good libraries,
  >why there's no one reasonable library?

DI>HEY! Have anyone seen something like that?

   Would anyone like to share their porting experience or express their
   opinions concerning the degree of *portability* between vendor-supported
   C++ class libraries ?

   I have heard some programmers mentioned that it's harder to port C++ than
   C, would anyone like to comment about this particular issue ?

   Your reply would be greatly appreciated.

   p.s.

   please email me a carbon copy of your reply to this newsgroup, thanks.


 * OLX 2.2 * The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity
---
   RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285