5 ms·

Does it feel to anyone else like they are procrastinating on modules? C++ has been thinking about it for a very long time. Yet the actual result is a generic "s

by eclark 11y ago

Does it feel to anyone else like they are procrastinating on modules? C++ has been thinking about it for a very long time. Yet the actual result is a generic "soon."

lbrandy 11y ago
I've been following modules pretty closely and attended the meeting in Jacksonville. I think the story here is actually pretty positive. I understand people are upset it's not making C++17 but those expectations were always unrealistic. Based on my read of the situation, modules were never a serious candidate for C++17. IMO, what's happening with modules is basically the best (realistic) outcome. Up until Jacksonville, we had only a proposal and all the implementors either implementing their proposal, or implementing nothing waiting for a TS. Modules were blocked on the committee. And that's a slow place to be blocked. Now we've cleared the major hurdles for a modules v1 TS and gotten to the point where implementors are unblocked by the committee and we can start actually building and using it. If the early-adopters want modules from their implementations, they'll actually be able get it, now, finally. Once implementations start happening, and we gain a bunch of "deployment experience", it'll be a whole lot easier to chart a course through the remaining thorny issues with respect to macros and "middle-up" deployment to existing codebases.
- TillE 11y ago
  Just speaking as an average C++ programmer who doesn't watch the standards process too closely, after C++14 it seemed like quite a few major features, modules included, were expected for C++17. At that point no one was saying it was unrealistic. I was hoping for reflection, but it was clear to me a few years ago that there wasn't enough interest or agreement there. But I think a lot of people expected modules and concepts.
humanrebar 11y ago
I've been hearing very consistently that there hasn't been much consensus on what a 'module' is or what it should do.

by eclark 11y ago

Does it feel to anyone else like they are procrastinating on modules? C++ has been thinking about it for a very long time. Yet the actual result is a generic "soon."

lbrandy 11y ago

I've been following modules pretty closely and attended the meeting in Jacksonville. I think the story here is actually pretty positive. I understand people are upset it's not making C++17 but those expectations were always unrealistic. Based on my read of the situation, modules were never a serious candidate for C++17. IMO, what's happening with modules is basically the best (realistic) outcome. Up until Jacksonville, we had only a proposal and all the implementors either implementing their proposal, or implementing nothing waiting for a TS. Modules were blocked on the committee. And that's a slow place to be blocked. Now we've cleared the major hurdles for a modules v1 TS and gotten to the point where implementors are unblocked by the committee and we can start actually building and using it. If the early-adopters want modules from their implementations, they'll actually be able get it, now, finally. Once implementations start happening, and we gain a bunch of "deployment experience", it'll be a whole lot easier to chart a course through the remaining thorny issues with respect to macros and "middle-up" deployment to existing codebases.

TillE 11y ago
Just speaking as an average C++ programmer who doesn't watch the standards process too closely, after C++14 it seemed like quite a few major features, modules included, were expected for C++17. At that point no one was saying it was unrealistic. I was hoping for reflection, but it was clear to me a few years ago that there wasn't enough interest or agreement there. But I think a lot of people expected modules and concepts.

humanrebar 11y ago

I've been hearing very consistently that there hasn't been much consensus on what a 'module' is or what it should do.