>>39,29
Visible in source code.
Ah, I misunderstood; I thought you meant performance-wise. In this case, the vast majority of high-level languages (basically all those that support operator overloading) fit this criteria, making it a mostly meaningless observation. C++ is nothing special in this regard; I'm not sure why you think this is 'getting close to C++'.
And do you think they would be complete, portable, bug-free, and reasonably fast any sooner if std::map was part of the language instead of the standard library?
Yes. Lots of platforms still claim C++ support without STL. Even though STL is part of the specification, people still think it's optional and think that having C libraries with a C++ compiler is 'good enough' (Symbian C++ is a perfect example).
AFAIK Common Lisp used to have similar problems, with certain compilers/interpreters claiming compliance without supporting e.g. hash maps. Implementors just don't seem to care whether it's in the spec; 'libraries are optional' seems to be the overriding mentality.
Conversely, there are a number of Python interpreters available; how many do you see claiming compliance without supporting dict?