[pcr910303]

I really don’t need an extended-C with productivity features... as that’s one of the defining points of C(the language is small). Fixing the warts (like different behavior between the overflow of unsigned ints & signed inta) would have been fine.

I personally want a better stdlib for C; fix the defiancies of <string.h>, removing the global locales (changing function behaviors according to LC_* was a really, really bad idea[0]), etc...

Does anyone know of an alternative stdlib for C?

[0] https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/1e70e82baa9193f6f02...

[jononor]

If you are targeting nix/BSD/MacOS/Windows then https://developer.gnome.org/glib/ is pretty good standard library for C. Not supported on bare-metal though.

[thechao]

Right? I keep thinking that the first place to start on a better C is to ask what needs be removed — not added. Once the “bad parts” are removed, what ergonomic features need be added back in?

For starters: implicit coercion is out; weak type aliasing is out; automatic binary serialization of aggregate types is out; etc.

[kannmig]

https://www.musl-libc.org/

[saagarjha]

That doesn't fix the issues mentioned. (Whether it's an "alternative" stdlib for C is debatable; nobody ever said that glibc is "the" stdlib for C…)

[ftvy]

It is the de facto standard on Linux.

[pjmlp]

That doesn't make it the official implementation of ISO C, just one among many.

[Porthos9K]

Which Linux? There are plenty that use MUSL instead.

[hybrids]

musl is just another implementation of the true stdlib. I think what they want is an alternative to standard-conforming stdlibs that fills a similar niche - in other words, a "non-standard" standard library.