There’s an interesting almost-point, in there…

Some languages go for the minimal standard-lib, to keep the language clean & evolving ( can’t remember the posterchild for that one, some newish language with few letters in its name, sorry )

& other languages ( C++ ) go for infinite-cruft in the standard-library, so that it becomes impossible to evolve the language without dragging all the cruft along, too.

…

Which actually suggests that there ought be a DevOps style continuously-evolving core-language, & a separate, versioned standard-lib, with unmaintained stdlib stuff being not-included, thus UN-drowning stdlib’s devlopment/currency…

Instead of presuming that ALL which had been made into stdlib had to be brough-up-to-speed…

IF nobody’ll do the work, THEN … leave it behind, see?

Self-pruning ecology…

Just a thought, & not applicable, in many languages…

but it does seem to be more-agile than what C++'s doing, with its NEVER-drop-ANYTHING from its stdlib paradigm…

_ /\ _