[dead]
C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
21–30 of 143 posts
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#22Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#23I can’t deploy C++ modules to any of the hardware I use in the shop. Probably won’t change in the near-to-mid future. It seems likely I’ll have to move away from C++, or perhaps more accurately it’s moving away from me.
If you tools are not updated that isn't the fault of C++. You will feel the same about Rust when forced to used a 15 year old version too (as I write this Rust 1.0 is only 10 years old). Don't whine to me about these problems, whine to your vendors until they give you the new stuff.
> whine to your vendors until they give you the new stuff.
How well does this usually work, by the way?
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#24I can’t deploy C++ modules to any of the hardware I use in the shop. Probably won’t change in the near-to-mid future. It seems likely I’ll have to move away from C++, or perhaps more accurately it’s moving away from me.
If you tools are not updated that isn't the fault of C++. You will feel the same about Rust when forced to used a 15 year old version too (as I write this Rust 1.0 is only 10 years old). Don't whine to me about these problems, whine to your vendors until they give you the new stuff.
Nobody is "whining" to you. Nobody is mentioning rust. Your tone is way too sharp for this discussion.
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#25I can’t deploy C++ modules to any of the hardware I use in the shop. Probably won’t change in the near-to-mid future. It seems likely I’ll have to move away from C++, or perhaps more accurately it’s moving away from me.
If you tools are not updated that isn't the fault of C++. You will feel the same about Rust when forced to used a 15 year old version too (as I write this Rust 1.0 is only 10 years old). Don't whine to me about these problems, whine to your vendors until they give you the new stuff.
If C++ libraries eschew backward compatibility to chase after build time improvements, that’s their design decision. I’ll see an even greater build time improvement than they do (because I won’t be able to build their code at all).
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#26I can’t deploy C++ modules to any of the hardware I use in the shop. Probably won’t change in the near-to-mid future. It seems likely I’ll have to move away from C++, or perhaps more accurately it’s moving away from me.
If you tools are not updated that isn't the fault of C++. You will feel the same about Rust when forced to used a 15 year old version too (as I write this Rust 1.0 is only 10 years old). Don't whine to me about these problems, whine to your vendors until they give you the new stuff.
My experience with vendor toolchains is that they generally suck anyway.
In a recent bare metal project I chose not to use the vendor's IDE and toolchain (which is just an old version of GCC with some questionable cmake scripts around it) and instead just cross compile with rust manually. And so far its been a really good decision.
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#27Here’s the thing I don’t get about module partitions: They only seem to allow one level of encapsulation. Program - Module - Module Partition whereas in module systems that support module visibility, like Rust’s, you can decompose your program at multiple abstraction levels: Program - Private Module - Private Module - Private Module - Public Module - Public Module Maybe I am missing something. It seems like you will…
Rust's re-exports also allow you to design your public module structure separate from your internal structure.
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#28Here’s the thing I don’t get about module partitions: They only seem to allow one level of encapsulation. Program - Module - Module Partition whereas in module systems that support module visibility, like Rust’s, you can decompose your program at multiple abstraction levels: Program - Private Module - Private Module - Private Module - Public Module - Public Module Maybe I am missing something. It seems like you will…
I don't think you're missing something. The standards committee made a bad call with "no submodules", ran into insurmountable problems, and doubled down on the bad call via partitions.
"Just one more level bro, I swear. One more".
I fully expect to sooner or later see a retcon on why really, two is the right number.
Yeah, I'm salty about this. "Submodules encourage dependency messes" is just trying to fix substandard engineering across many teams via enforcement of somewhat arbitrary rules. That has never worked in the history of programming. "The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language" is still true.
Re: C++ Modules Are Here to Stay
#29C++ templates and metaprogramming is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of your code being treated in modules.
The current solution chosen by compilers is to basically have a copy of your code for every dependency that wants to specialize something.
For template heavy code, this is a combinatorial explosion.