Is there any new reason to believe that? What I had seen--and which I would have thought would be obvious--is that the C++ module design only helps at lower lev

Is there any new reason to believe that? What I had seen--and which I would have thought would be obvious--is that the C++ module design only helps at lower levels of parallelism and actually slows down the build dramatically at the higher levels of parallelism used by people who actually care about build performance; this is apparently because the inherent design of modules causes the same kind of pervasive coupling seen with Rust, destroying the inherent scalability of the classic C++ separate compilation model. https://vector-of-bool.github.io/2019/01/27/modules-doa.html https://vector-of-bool.github.io/2019/01/27/modules-doa.html https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1441r1.pdf https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p14... > Expectedly, as hardware parallelism increases, headers’ lead over modules becomes more and more pronounced. There is also a relationship between the DAG-depth (i.e. The length of the chain of modules that import each other). As this depth increases, modules grow slower and slower, while headers remain fairly constant for even “extreme” depths approaching 300).