> You might have noticed that when I'm talking about modules being organized as a tree, I say that it seems to be neatly organized. Because the dependencies are

> You might have noticed that when I'm talking about modules being organized as a tree, I say that it seems to be neatly organized. Because the dependencies are acyclic there, modules aren't actually organized, this tree structure merely provides an illusion, while underneath there is likely a dependency mess, and there can be hundreds of files in that mess, and Rust seemingly encourages that; otherwise why would we need modules to be organized in a tree in the first place. Personally, this strikes me as bizarre. It is only an "illusion" if one expects a module tree structure to map one-to-one with dependencies. No one should expect this, as I will explain with three uncontroversial and widely known points: A. Are there any languages where parent-child relationships between modules necessarily imply dependency semantics? I can't think of any, nor can I envision any sane language doing so. [Note 1] B. In Rust, like with so many languages, when a module is nested in another module, that means the inner module is scoped inside the outer module. It is about namespacing, not dependencies. C. Dependencies are created when the contents of something in a module refer to another module. [Note 1]: How would such a language specify more than one dependency? A node in a tree can only have one parent, after all. This would rule out a one-to-one mapping.