>>119
So let me get this straight. Is std::map really the only thing the STL has going for it? The map is the only goddamn thing everyone brings up over and over, so here, courtesy of google, some red-black tree maps in C:
http://www.mit.edu/~emin/source_code/red_black_tree/index.html
http://en.literateprograms.org/Red-black_tree_%28C%29
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~plank/plank/rbtree/rbtree.html
http://semanticvector.blogspot.com/2008/05/red-black-tree-in-2-hours.htm
Every goddamn fucking time the C/C++ debate comes up, everyone says over and over how you're going to waste time reimplementing stuff that's already in STL. Do you think C programmers are incapable of re-using code?
Because if I statically link one of the above into my app, it's going to be a fuck of a lot more portable than 'whatever broken STL implementation the platform supports', and it will be smaller anyway without all that template bullshit. And is it really the end of the world if I have to do map_at(mymap, "key") instead of mymap["key"]??