'canonical' library-set ?

I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any' task ?
But that it is not widely accepted.

So eg. for strings, you might have:
* return position of substring in string, else zero;
....
* insert substring in string at position;
.... etc.

I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
selecting procedures/function out of the library ?

So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?

Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?

Perhaps java-programmers do this by 'browsing' the methods of classes ?
Does it work ?

This query is prompted by an attempt to read some forth code;
where a dictionary of fields:
    <forthWord> : <text explanation>
would be usefull.

But then why not just structure the dictionary as a heirarchy, where
you can browse the <text explanation> to get the <forthWord> ?

Such visual tools WORK for me, eg. mc, but many prefer to 
'remember instead of just recognize' . I think it gives them a
childish feeling of power: the motive to resist deskilling.

Ideas ?

== Chris Glur.