Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by wyldfire on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @10:02AM (#15449818)

Note that I didn't mention innovation or novelty or originality. I just said that Rust "set the bar." To respond to your objection I'd just clarify by qualifying it better and refer to the "systems programming" or whatever domain C/C++ and Rust both belong to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by pjmlp on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @10:04AM (#15449834)

So then check modules in Modula-2, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Ada, Oberon, Oberon-2, Oberon-07, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Turbo Pascal.

All used in the context of systems programming.

Rust modules don't add anything new to them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by AaronFriel on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @11:37AM (#15450589)

It adds an excellent packaging system and developer experience in the form of cargo, which is also a package manager for external modules. "The bar", I think, is taken to mean the combination of all of these features and their execution, not the idea of modules.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by pjmlp on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @12:23PM (#15450929)

A packaging system is orthogonal to modules.

Those ideas are also present in Maven, Gradle, NuGet. All older than cargo.

And all trace back to CPAN as general concept.

I am still waiting for cargo to support binary libraries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by jononor on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @10:26AM (#15450000)

Rust has not brought much new in terms of modules. It just has decent modules support according to established best-practice. The innovations are primarily around the borrow-checker.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by pjmlp on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @11:05AM (#15450344)

That I agree with.

[ Parent | on HN ]