

Apache Kills Off Its C++ Standard Library - udp
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQxNDE

======
netcraft
Not being a c++ dev, I didn't realize there were multiple versions of the
standard library - are they just different implementations of the same api?
Are there other languages with multiple implementations of the standard lib?

~~~
_delirium
I would say most languages do. C is another one: the original AT&T C library
has found its way via changes into some of the BSDs, but Linux systems
typically use the GNU C library ("glibc"), which for copyright reasons had to
be done as an independent implementation (the Unix source at the time was
proprietary). Microsoft and IBM also have their own C library implementations.

~~~
stephencanon
Apple, Intel, HP, ... also have their own C library implementations, to say
nothing of dinkumware and musl-libc and ..., or the various glibc derivatives
like eglibc and bionic. I could go on for quite a while, now that I think
about it.

~~~
zeckalpha
Bionic is a glibc derivative?

~~~
cokernel_hacker
It is not, it contains pieces of various BSD libc derivatives:

[http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million-
dollar-l...](http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million-dollar-
libc.html)

------
rbanffy
I don't get the complains. Apache is abandoning it, but you can still download
it, host it on Github and contribute as much as you want. That's the whole
point of "free as in freedom" and, if Oracle has been unable to kill MySQL, I
doubt the Apache Foundation would do it.

------
apaprocki
Shameless plug: If you'd like an actively developed, cross platform
alternative C++ standard library (with Lakos allocators), come check out BSL:
[https://github.com/bloomberg/bsl](https://github.com/bloomberg/bsl)

Sadly right now C++11 library features will lag a bit because not all
compilers support them.

------
twoodfin
Sun/Oracle was moving to Apache stdcxx to replace their existing awful options
of a way out of date Rogue Wave STL or an almost as out of date STLport.

[https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2293516](https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2293516)

I wonder what they'll do now. The sensible thing would be to adopt clang and
libc++, so we can be reasonably certain they won't do that.

~~~
apaprocki
Studio 13 will use the g++ runtime:
[http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37069_01/html/E37071/gndfg.html#O...](http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37069_01/html/E37071/gndfg.html#OSSWNgnddm)

~~~
twoodfin
Not so bad. I wonder if we'll still have Solaris customers when this compiler
is ready for use.

Are they planning on shipping this runtime with the OS eventually?

~~~
apaprocki
Yes, they took this approach because otherwise it is a pretty monumental
effort to create a C++11 std lib from scratch and they didn't have any work
done on the compiler side yet.

------
Aldo_MX
Sorry to ask but i'm confused, is it really bad that the project got declared
its end of life? The source is open and anyone interested is able to continue
where it left off...

~~~
mcpherrinm
I assume this means the Apache foundation will stop providing whatever
services they provided. What those are, I'm unsure, but given the inactivity
on the project, I assume it won't be a huge difference.

------
omra
Check out the status reports to the Apache Board of Directors
([http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/](http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/)):

(05/11)

    
    
          No changes. Stdcxx continues to be dormant. There was a flurry of emails
          on the stdcxx-dev list suggesting continued interest from the same two
          parties (ARM and Sun) but no new work.
    

\---

The Attic is where retired Apache projects go.

(02/2012)

    
    
          A vote to move stdcxx to the Attic failed. The majority of stdcxx
          contributors voted in favor of continuing to maintain the project.
          Several inactive committers stepped up to help with the project.
    

\---

I do not think that this was a surprise. Regular status reports stopped
completely after February 2012. It's also notable that Chris Bergström was
proposed for the new chair position, see [http://mail-
archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201306.m...](http://mail-
archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201306.mbox/browser)

~~~
mjn
Seems to have been telegraphed since at least November 2010:
[http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2010-11.txt](http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2010-11.txt)

------
radmuzom
I am not familiar with the history of this project, but why was Apache trying
to re-create the C++ standard library at all? Given that in GNU/Linux systems,
the canonical implementation is the one provided by GCC (G++), and Microsoft
provides their own implementations.

~~~
klodolph
1) There are more platforms than "GCC" and "Microsoft". Maybe your microwave
oven runs code written in C++, who knows.

2) In 2005, some existing C++ standard libraries did not follow the standard
very well.

~~~
pjmlp
Not only that, there are many more C and C++ compilers out there than just
clang, gcc and msvc.

------
edsiper2
Even some people still use it, last release was five years ago, totally fear.

~~~
bjz_
fear->fair?

