single-file public domain libraries for C/C++
| library | lastest version | category | LoC | description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| stb_vorbis.c | 1.06 | audio | 5441 | decode ogg vorbis files from file/memory to float/16-bit signed output |
| stb_image.h | 2.06 | graphics | 6438 | image loading/decoding from file/memory: JPG, PNG, TGA, BMP, PSD, GIF, HDR, PIC |
| stb_truetype.h | 1.07 | graphics | 3220 | parse, decode, and rasterize characters from truetype fonts |
| stb_image_write.h | 0.98 | graphics | 735 | image writing to disk: PNG, TGA, BMP |
| stb_image_resize.h | 0.90 | graphics | 2586 | resize images larger/smaller with good quality |
| stb_rect_pack.h | 0.06 | graphics | 566 | simple 2D rectangle packer with decent quality |
| stretchy_buffer.h | 1.02 | utility | 216 | typesafe dynamic array for C (i.e. approximation to vector<>), doesn't compile as C++ |
| stb_textedit.h | 1.6 | UI | 1290 | guts of a text editor for games etc implementing them from scratch |
| stb_voxel_render.h | 0.82 | 3D graphics | 3746 | Minecraft-esque voxel rendering "engine" with many more features |
| stb_dxt.h | 1.04 | 3D graphics | 630 | Fabian "ryg" Giesen's real-time DXT compressor |
| stb_perlin.h | 0.2 | 3D graphics | 182 | revised Perlin noise (3D input, 1D output) |
| stb_easy_font.h | 0.5 | 3D graphics | 226 | quick-and-dirty easy-to-deploy bitmap font for printing frame rate, etc |
| stb_tilemap_editor.h | 0.35 | game dev | 4120 | embeddable tilemap editor |
| stb_herringbone_wa... | 0.6 | game dev | 1220 | herringbone Wang tile map generator |
| stb_c_lexer.h | 0.06 | parsing | 815 | simplify writing parsers for C-like languages |
| stb_divide.h | 0.91 | math | 379 | more useful 32-bit modulus e.g. "euclidean divide" |
| stb.h | 2.24 | misc | 14093 | helper functions for C, mostly redundant in C++; basically author's personal stuff |
| stb_leakcheck.h | 0.2 | misc | 122 | quick-and-dirty malloc/free leak-checking |
Total libraries: 18
Total lines of C code: 46025
These libraries are in the public domain (or the equivalent where that is not possible). You can do anything you want with them. You have no legal obligation to do anything else, although I appreciate attribution.
No.
Generally they're only better in that they're easier to integrate, easier to use, and easier to release (single file; good API; no attribution requirement). They may be less featureful, slower, and/or use more memory. If you're already using an equivalent library, there's probably no good reason to switch.
Just to give you some idea of the internal complexity of the library, to help you manage your expectations, or to let you know what you're getting into. While not all the libraries are written in the same style, they're certainly similar styles, and so comparisons between the libraries are probably still meaningful.
Note though that the lines do include both the implementation, the part that corresponds to a header file, and the documentation.
Windows doesn't have standard directories where libraries live. That makes deploying libraries in Windows a lot more painful than open source developers on Unix-derivates generally realize. (It also makes library dependencies a lot worse in Windows.)
There's also a common problem in Windows where a library was built against a different version of the runtime library, which causes link conflicts and confusion. Shipping the libs as headers means you normally just compile them straight into your project without making libraries, thus sidestepping that problem.
Making them a single file makes it very easy to just drop them into a project that needs them. (Of course you can still put them in a proper shared library tree if you want.)
Why not two files, one a header and one an implementation? The difference between 10 files and 9 files is not a big deal, but the difference between 2 files and 1 file is a big deal. You don't need to zip or tar the files up, you don't have to remember to attach two files, etc.
No, they are just the initials for my name, Sean T. Barrett. This was not chosen out of egomania, but as a semi-robust way of namespacing the filenames and source function names.
If people submit them, I generally add them, but the goal of stb_image is less for applications like image viewer apps (which need to support every type of image under the sun) and more for things like games which can choose what images to use, so I may decline to add them if they're too rare or if the size of implementation vs. apparent benefit is too low.
Yes. I'll put a list here when people remind me what they are.
Yes. https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/docs/stb_howto.txt
I prefer it over GPL, LGPL, BSD, zlib, etc. for many reasons. Some of them are listed here: https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/docs/why_public_domain.md
Primarily, because I use C, not C++. But it does also make it easier for other people to use them from other languages.
I still use MSVC 6 (1998) as my IDE because it has better human factors for me than later versions of MSVC.