Sure, someone would complain. Just because some people would complain about the absence of one feature that you say is impractical to implement doesn't mean you

Sure, someone would complain. Just because some people would complain about the absence of one feature that you say is impractical to implement doesn't mean you should avoid implementing the rest of the thing. That's the classic "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" thing. The benefits of a standardized package manager seem worth a few people complaining. I'm sure someone somewhere would probably even complain that they would rather be writing JavaScript or another, non-C++ language, no matter how good the C++ package manager is. Go has proven that a good package manager can work without that feature. You say that feature is something the C++ Committee could never tackle. My whole statement has been "fine, learn from Go!" Instead, you keep harping on this nice-to-have feature and saying it can't be done. Package management is solvable in a way that suits C++. It seems inevitable that standardized package management will eventually happen for C++. I understand your perspective now, but I just don't think I agree with it.