stb

single-file public domain libraries for C/C++

library	lastest version	category	LoC	description
stb_vorbis.c	1.04	audio	5443	decode ogg vorbis files from file/memory to float/16-bit signed output
stb_image.h	2.03	graphics	6426	image loading/decoding from file/memory: JPG, PNG, TGA, BMP, PSD, GIF, HDR, PIC
stb_truetype.h	1.03	graphics	2629	parse, decode, and rasterize characters from truetype fonts
stb_image_write.h	0.98	graphics	730	image writing to disk: PNG, TGA, BMP
stb_image_resize.h	0.90	graphics	2585	resize images larger/smaller with good quality
stb_rect_pack.h	0.05	graphics	546	simple 2D rectangle packer with decent quality
stretchy_buffer.h	1.01	utility	209	typesafe dynamic array for C (i.e. approximation to vector<>), doesn't compile as C++
stb_textedit.h	1.5	UI	1284	guts of a text editor for games etc implementing them from scratch
stb_voxel_render.h	0.80	3D graphics	3644	Minecraft-esque voxel rendering "engine" with many more features
stb_dxt.h	1.04	3D graphics	624	Fabian "ryg" Giesen's real-time DXT compressor
stb_perlin.h	0.2	3D graphics	175	revised Perlin noise (3D input, 1D output)
stb_easy_font.h	0.5	3D graphics	220	quick-and-dirty easy-to-deploy bitmap font for printing frame rate, etc
stb_tilemap_editor.h	0.30	game dev	4097	embeddable tilemap editor
stb_herringbone_wa...	0.6	game dev	1217	herringbone Wang tile map generator
stb_c_lexer.h	0.06	parsing	809	simplify writing parsers for C-like languages
stb_divide.h	0.91	math	373	more useful 32-bit modulus e.g. "euclidean divide"
stb.h	2.24	misc	14086	helper functions for C, mostly redundant in C++; basically author's personal stuff
stb_leakcheck.h	0.1	misc	117	quick-and-dirty malloc/free leak-checking

FAQ

What's the license?

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.

If I wrap an stb library in a new library, does the new library have to be public domain?

No.

A lot of these libraries seem redundant to existing open source libraries. Are they better somehow?

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.

Why do you list "lines of code"? It's a terrible metric.

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.

Why single-file headers?

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.

Why "stb"? Is this something to do with Set-Top Boxes?

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.

Will you add more image types to stb_image.c?

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.

Are there other single-file public-domain libraries out there?

Yes. I'll put a list here when people remind me what they are.

Do you have any advice on how to create my own single-file library?

Yes. https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/docs/stb_howto.txt

Why public domain?

Because more people will use it. Because it's not viral, people are not obligated to give back, so you could argue that it hurts the development of it, and then because it doesn't develop as well it's not as good, and then because it's not as good, in the long run maybe fewer people will use it. I have total respect for that opinion, but I just don't believe it myself for most software.

Why C?

Primarily, because I use C, not C++. But it does also make it easier for other people to use them from other languages.

Why not C99? stdint.h, declare-anywhere, etc.

I still use MSVC 6 (1998) as my IDE because it has better human factors for me than later versions of MSVC.