Part of "size of libraries" is "mental size of libraries".
And C++ and Lisp and have very large mental spaces for their main core libraries. A "String", for example, carries a huge amount of mental baggage in those languages. In most other languages, a string is extremely straightforward because it was designed into the language from the start.
It's essentially a std::vector<char> with a few random convenience features bolted on.
I guess some of the confusing points are: not unicode aware, string literals aren't std::strings by default, c_str returns a pointer to a buffer with length one greater than the string length, and the usual C++ quirks like why is there both data and c_str?
The usual C++ response: for backwards compatibility, because data was not required to null-terminate prior to C++11.
I think one of the classic advantages of C++ over C is that you have the option of std::string instead of char arrays.
I don't program in C++ so I don't really know but I do a lot of pure C and the strings truly are a mess (despite being VERY straightforward)