That's a one time gain though. There's no reason for every platform to check the validity of some hash table implementation when that implementation is identical on all of them.
In my opinion, the verification of the implementation should be separate from the task of translating that implementation to bytecode. This leaves you with a simple compiler that is easy to implement but still with a strong verifier that is harder to implement, but optional.
Nobody needs to change a language standard for 9 lines of code. When you really want to use a hash map, its likely that you care about performance, so you don't want to use a generic implementation anyway.
> or a at least a community consensus about which one you pick
There is a hash table API in POSIX:
GNU libc: https://sourceware.org/glibc/manual/latest/html_node/Hash-Search-Function.html
Linux hsearch(3): https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/hsearch.3.html
hsearch(3posix): https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/hcreate.3p.html
And who’s volunteering for that verification using the existing toolchain? I don’t think that’s been overlooked just because the git devs are too dumb or lazy or unmotivated.
That came across more harshly than I meant, but I stand by the gist of it: this stuff is too hard to do in C or someone would’ve done it. It can be done, clearly, but there’s not the return on investment in this specific use case. But with better tooling, and more ergonomic languages, those are achievable goals by a larger pool of devs — if not today, because Rust isn’t as common as C yet, then soon.
In my opinion, the verification of the implementation should be separate from the task of translating that implementation to bytecode. This leaves you with a simple compiler that is easy to implement but still with a strong verifier that is harder to implement, but optional.