Search Results
7/8/2025, 3:16:41 PM
>>105835389
>Modules work but getting build systems like CMake to compile them is a nightmare. For others like XMake it is straight forward, but XMake has its own share of problems. Other than that, modules work.
>Better than headers, certainly. But not a very high bar to cross, huh? They compile faster and named translation units are just much more elegant than file/path specified includes. Not to mention that there is no longer a reason to split your code between declarations and source.
>Modules were a last minute thing tacked on to the language that should have been in C++ from the start like every modern language had. Ideally modules would be like Java where each package is tied to its path and namespaces corresponded to modules exactly. Furthermore, the tooling is absolute dogshit. Language servers can parse includes, but to parse modules you have to recompile everything and allow the language servers to read the generated .pcm file metadata. No other language has this problem. Not even Rust, which also works similarly with modules. There is also the lack of any convention when it comes to naming modules. Retards name their modules shit like math and util, which clash with any other project that name a module the same thing. At least with Java you had to begin with the company domain in the package names.
>Committee for coming up with such an awful last-minute proposal, compilers for doing fuck all to support them and make working tooling (intellisense module support is nonexistent, and clangd modules are useable on a good day), C++ community for the absolute lack of convention when it comes to naming modules.
>Modules work but getting build systems like CMake to compile them is a nightmare. For others like XMake it is straight forward, but XMake has its own share of problems. Other than that, modules work.
>Better than headers, certainly. But not a very high bar to cross, huh? They compile faster and named translation units are just much more elegant than file/path specified includes. Not to mention that there is no longer a reason to split your code between declarations and source.
>Modules were a last minute thing tacked on to the language that should have been in C++ from the start like every modern language had. Ideally modules would be like Java where each package is tied to its path and namespaces corresponded to modules exactly. Furthermore, the tooling is absolute dogshit. Language servers can parse includes, but to parse modules you have to recompile everything and allow the language servers to read the generated .pcm file metadata. No other language has this problem. Not even Rust, which also works similarly with modules. There is also the lack of any convention when it comes to naming modules. Retards name their modules shit like math and util, which clash with any other project that name a module the same thing. At least with Java you had to begin with the company domain in the package names.
>Committee for coming up with such an awful last-minute proposal, compilers for doing fuck all to support them and make working tooling (intellisense module support is nonexistent, and clangd modules are useable on a good day), C++ community for the absolute lack of convention when it comes to naming modules.
Page 1