That seems to be what he says, but after the first part he disregards that as not useful. Another comment points out following the standard is good for portabilities sake. Somehow, that all seems obvious to me.
That was the build up. It led to the following statement and conclusion:
"For time when you want to prove abstractly to standard, this doesn't seem better than KCC. In short, this feels like Not Invented Here against KCC. Probably unfair characterization, but that's what it feels to me."
The obvious interpretation is commenter thinking KCC is better and (see NIH) the OP should've maybe done something with it instead...?
" Another comment points out following the standard is good for portabilities sake. Somehow, that all seems obvious to me."
You can follow the standard and be portable if you keep certain parts as options subject to interpretation/choice of the implementers. That's the so-called undefined behavior mostly.
