>The distinction between “the language” and “libraries that ship with the language” is not useful but even if it was the comment presents initialization a wart in the core language.
I think it is extremely useful, as the standard library is easily (and often) replaced. We have a difference of opinion, and that is perfectly fine, but please do realize that this doesn't mean my comment is in bad faith.
Every library has a goal, and the standard library's goal is not to serve as a industry-ready plug-in for high-performance code. Writing high-performance code in C++ is an advanced task that necessitates more control, which makes the standard library not a good fit. The model of (language) + (library) makes it easy for the end user to pick a library of their choice, for their application.
>comment presents initialization a wart in the core language.
Okay, that is one point. When people say "X sucks" or "X is horrible" there is very little a reader can gain out of that. If a person's opinion is formed by deep experience with that X, then I am interested in knowing specifics that lead to that opinion.
The distinction is useful in the context of a discussion about alternative standard libraries, but in the context of the ISO working group that does the design for both it is not.
I understand that you intention was to get more information, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that responding to someone who is listing out their complaints with what is essentially "a bunch of people use the language productively, can you please give me information that you just went over, otherwise I am going to disregard your comment" can be interpreted as bad faith because it's a common troll/asymmetric effort tactic.
I think it is extremely useful, as the standard library is easily (and often) replaced. We have a difference of opinion, and that is perfectly fine, but please do realize that this doesn't mean my comment is in bad faith.
Every library has a goal, and the standard library's goal is not to serve as a industry-ready plug-in for high-performance code. Writing high-performance code in C++ is an advanced task that necessitates more control, which makes the standard library not a good fit. The model of (language) + (library) makes it easy for the end user to pick a library of their choice, for their application.
>comment presents initialization a wart in the core language.
Okay, that is one point. When people say "X sucks" or "X is horrible" there is very little a reader can gain out of that. If a person's opinion is formed by deep experience with that X, then I am interested in knowing specifics that lead to that opinion.