Hard disagree. I wish the world worked that way, but it doesn't. So much happens in the time between the product inception and delivery. Initial proposal of value, prototypes, customer feedback and requests, known performance issues to work around, making hooks for non-devs to execute important overrides... the list goes on, and contracts have dates that have to be met. Stuff can't be rewritten to address every turn. This is why Agile (however abused it is) largely beat Waterfall. Software should serve people and yield to their needs. Not the other way around.
I don't know what you're disagreeing with, but I suppose you're welcome to open up a PR to change the standard library with your specific use case so you can meet a contract date. I imagine you'll be quite handedly laughed at.
I've seen this often as well, typically some library will get flag by programs like snyk giving you a "high" score. The way snyk scores packages is completely asinine. It favors libraries that are constantly being updated compared to say some library that is feature complete and in maintenance mode. One way around this is to literally pull all the source code and paste it into your repo.
I have replaced pieces of C++ standard library quite a few times.
std::list calls malloc/free for every node instead of a bunch of them, expensive. Also they are doubly linked, for some applications a single-linked lists fit better.
std::vector<bool> lacks data() method, makes serializing/deserializing them prohibitively expensive.
Even something as simple as std::min / std::max for float and double types aren't using the correct implementation on AMD64, which is a single instruction like _mm_min_ss / _mm_max_sd.
