Re: So.... what are we going to do about modules?

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-06 14:41:18

On 4/5/22 4:58 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:

> What are we going to do about modules?

The most cursory examination of this idea leads me to suspect that this 
is the worst idea ever and will make the life anyone who gets near it a 
living hell.  Seems like a huge idea to solve a non-problem.

So I think we should hang back until someone demonstrates this thing has 
any value to anyone.

> 7) Does anyone have a handle on the current state of std library 
> modularization?

And this is a huge issue for me.  We've made huge efforts and progress 
toward making boost "more modular".  BUT

a) Boost is still distributed as a monolith.  So as boost gets bigger, 
one has to distribute bigger and bigger packages even when using boost 
in a small component.

b) Things depend on one's linking model, static, dynamic or mixed.  And 
this gets mixed up with C++ with questions of ODR, multiple symbol 
definitions, sequence of static instance initializations etc.

Ideally, I'd like to write a small app, include headers (or modules) 
which include components I want to use, and just compile and run.  I 
don't see that we're anywhere near being able to do this.  I'm coming to 
think that the goal as described here is not the right goal.

The C++ standard actively avoids touching on these questions - maybe for 
good reason - but leaves us in limbo.

I'm actually thinking that C++ has reached it's peak.  It's solved the 
question of language syntax.  Maybe the next language will start with a 
concept of deployment separate from syntax from the start. We'll see.

Robert Ramey