Why is glibc not extensive?

[Xi Ruoyao]

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.

> This will also make C more user friendly like C++ and Java.

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.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University