alt Hacker NewsI don't remember because I wasn't there :)
People are not complaining about the fact that C++ has modules, but about their usability and effectiveness. The compile time benefits seem modest and I have seen reports that it breaks Intellisense. (Maybe that's not true anymore?)
As Vittorio said, if it takes compiler vendors so long to implement them properly, maybe the design wasn't that good after all?
My point was: if you add such a big feature, shouldn't the standard require a sufficiently complete implementation? Otherwise, how can they assess whether the proposal actually works in practice and lives up to its promises?
Replies
Again, they had a sufficiently complete implementation. That implementation was in Visual Studio, clang had a very different implementation. The standard decided to take the Microsoft version. There are pros and cons to both and I will not fault the decision but either way one of the two had to lose and there is no surprise that for something complex it will take a long time to reimplement it to whatever the new standard is.
Agree that proof of implementation and real world experience should be a requirement for standardization. But it is a catch-22: implement it's are probably not always too keen to spend time on a large feature if it is not clear that it will be standardized.
In practice both clang and VS have had some form of module support for quite a while, but the final standard ended up being different from either implementation (shaped by their experience, and certainly with inevitable last minute inventions).
I wonder if for some features the committee should vote for general guidelines, the delegate a third party (one or more implementors) to come up with both an implementation and standardese with the understanding that it will be fast-tracked in wit too much bike-shedding