Re: On Boost and modules

From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-04-09 15:37:54

On 09/04/2024 13:31, Rainer Deyke via Boost wrote:
> On 08.04.24 20:29, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>> The more I read this thread, the more it seems to me that modules are 
>> just a bad idea.  We already have shared libraries which are 
>> redistributable and that's already a hassle given all the compiler 
>> switches.  shared libraries have the same issue in that if one only 
>> want's to use one function, the whole library has to be shipped.
>
> This does not follow.  Shared libraries have problems, therefore 
> modules (which /solve/ many of these problems) are a bad idea? What?
>
> I'm picturing a future where modules (in source code form) become 
> /the/ way to distribute C++ libraries.  Advantages:
> Â  - No more messing with build systems for the library author. Just 
> ship the source code.
I hear you.  Regex has been "just a bunch of source files" since day 
one.  It's surprising how many people are unable to cope with that and 
need a "build and install" to hold their hand.  Just saying...