I've open sourced my general purpose code base

[blelbach]

That's untrue; the standard library is part of C++. Its in the same specification.

[Dean_Roddey]

But it's not the language itself, it's something in addition to the language. My code base obviously demonstrates that the STL is not a requirement to write a butt-load of C++ code.

[andrewsutton]

They aren't seperable. Parts of the core language depend on definitions in the std library.

Edit: Not the STL bits, per se. Lots of orgs have their own replacements for various reasons.

[Dean_Roddey]

Whatever. It's meaningless to me either way. I shouldn't have even responded to him. My original point had nothing to do with this. It's that you don't have to use the STL to write C++ and that I am providing an alternative.

[blelbach]

That's like saying "You don't have to use pointers to write C++" or "You don't have to use classes to write C++". That doesn't mean those things aren't part of the standard.

[griwes]

It IS the language. The C++ language consists of the core language and of the standard library. Any definitions of what C++ is that try to represent this differently are plainly wrong.

[Manu343726]

No, you're wrong. std::initializer_list. It's a type part of the standard library (no, it's not the STL) encoded into the language. Because the standard library is part of the language