|
|
|
|
|
by Maxatar
678 days ago
|
|
None of those are implementations of the C++ standard library. None of them even live in the same namespace as the standard library so your claim that they remain compatible at the source level is nonsense. Just a simple Google search would reveal that you are wrong about this and what's worse is that you place the burden on me to have to disprove your wrong assertions as opposed to providing references that justify your position: Folly https://github.com/facebook/folly: "It complements (as opposed to competing against) offerings such as Boost and of course std. In fact, we embark on defining our own component only when something we need is either not available, or does not meet the needed performance profile." libcu++: https://nvidia.github.io/cccl/libcudacxx/ "It does not replace the Standard Library provided by your host compiler (aka anything in std::) Incremental: It does not provide a complete C++ Standard Library implementation." Abseil: https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp "Abseil is an open-source collection of C++ library code designed to augment the C++ standard library. Abseil is not meant to be a competitor to the standard library" |
|
How rude. Have you used any of those libraries or perhaps relied on Google's "AI"-generated answer?
> None of those are implementations of the C++ standard library.
HPX, EASTL specifically are, the latter being heavily used in (unsurprisingly) the gaming comunity).
libcu++ is for your target compilation.
As for Folly and Abseil, I wrote "as well as more who use Folly and Abseil which have alternate implementations to much of the standard library" (i.e. not ful drop in replacements).
So really I don't know what your point is: you made an assertion, then replied not to what I actually wrote but by simply doing a quick google search and using that as your conclusion.
I have used all of HPX, Folly and Abseil but I guess the top of a google search result is more authoritative.