Writing your own C++ standard library part 2

Summary

This blog post talked about the "self written C++ standard library" I wrote for the fun of it (code here).The post got linked by Hackernews and Reddit. As is usual the majority of comments did not talk about the actual content but instead were focused on two tangential things. The first one being "this is not a full implementation of the C++ standard library as specified by the ISO standard, therefore the author is an idiot". I am, in actual fact, an idiot, but not due to project scope but because I assumed people on the Internet to have elementary reading comprehension skills. To make things clear: no, this is not an implementation of the ISO standard library. At no point was such a thing claimed. There is little point in writing one of those, there are several high quality implementations available. "Standard library" in this context means "a collection of low level functions and types that would be needed by most applications".The second discussion was around the fact that calling the C++ standard library "STL" was both wrong and proof that the person saying that does not understand the C++ language. This was followed by several "I am a C++ standard library implementer and everyone I know calls it the STL". Things deteriorated from there.The complexity questionExisting container implementations are complex by necessity. They need to handle things like types that can not be noexcept moved or copied. The amount of rollback code needed explodes very quickly and needs to be processed every time the header is included (because of templates). A reasonable point against writing your own containers is that eventually you need to support all the same complexity as existing ones because people will insert "bad" types into your container and complain when things fail. Thus you need to have all the same nasty, complex and brittle code as an STL implementation, only lacking decades of hardening to shake out all the bugs.That is true, but the beauty of having zero existing use...