Kotlin language and standard library take the same approach to gradually evolving without strict backwards compatibility. They avoid making sudden, drastic changes but rather slowly evolve it over time with easy to handle incremental backwards incompatible changes. Same approach.
Conversation
Android's platform libraries and AndroidX Jetpack libraries (developer.android.com/jetpack/androi) certainly count as a form of standard library. The approach is dramatically different than the path taken by traditional platforms.
2
When you're writing an Android app, the Kotlin / Java standard libraries, AndroidX and platform libraries cover nearly everything you need so you hardly need any third party libraries. Java's approach hardly ever actually removes anything in practice so it's not really the same.
2
Still, Java has a rich standard library and they gradually replace the older libraries with newer ones. Jakarta is essentially an extended standard library from outside Java with a similar stability approach. It's one large collaborative project with a lot of bureaucracy.
2
There are a whole bunch of Jakarta libraries, from the same very collaborative and highly trusted project. It isn't part of Java's standard library, but it's a similar approach nonetheless. It's much different than a bunch of little projects developed by small independent groups.
2
Right, but that's not what you were arguing for. You were arguing for a large standard library, not a high quality group of non-standard libraries.
Heck, Rust has that! (sort of, it's getting better).
1
Jakarta has a quite strict standardization and release process, portability across different implementations of the language and a very high level of stability. It's not a first party implementation of a standard library, but I still think it qualifies as a standard library.
2
I don't doubt that it is a high quality set of libraries. But if you're going to stretch the definition of "a language's standard library" to include the high quality non-standard libraries that you like to use, then we can easily say that most languages have this already.
1
It's defined by a formal specification, it works with multiple implementations of the language and it has multiple implementations itself. Why doesn't it count as an extended standard library? It's developed as an extension of Java standardized process.
1
We're talking about the programming language's standard library, not the "extended standard library", whatever that means. You install the (language). This is what you have.
If you want to deviate from that definition, then you've robbed the term of any meaning.
1
Replying to
You often don't get the standard libraries as part of the language implementation. Clang/GCC don't give you a specific C or C++ standard library. Python is often distributed without all the standard libraries, and many require external packages to be installed in order to work.
Replying to
Indeed! Some languages do things very differently.
As for Python, though, if a standard library package is not installed, it was skipped at build time. You likely cannot install it later, unless the vendor did some funky non-standard magic to make that possible.
1
Replying to
That's often the case since that's how it's distributed on Debian-based distributions. Even distributions not prone to splitting packages still make most of the external libraries like sqlite, mpdecimal, xz, tk, etc. into optional dependencies.
1
Show replies