I am still hoping for a Modules v2 from the committee which has tangible benefits for the majority of users.
I am interested in what v1 misses that you want in v2. I believe because of https://lists.isocpp.org/sg15/2023/11/2106.php, the adoption will be much quicker than you think. On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 3:47 PM Niall Douglas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 17:34, Hassan Sajjad via Boost wrote:
I want to propose my build-system HMake for boost. Besides its already state-of-the-art C++20 modules and header-units support, it will be the first to support https://lists.isocpp.org/sg15/2023/11/2106.php or https://lists.isocpp.org/sg15/2023/11/2146.php if any of this gets implemented. These papers present ideas for faster module adoption and avoiding redundant module compilations. These need support from build-system. This way boost could be a breeding ground for C++20 modules adoption. Also, I have good experience with boost's current build-system b2 as a good portion of HMake's current API is inspired by it.
Unless it's improved cmake build support for Boost, I cannot say I am interested in yet another build system.
I also think few would consume Boost as modules for many, many years yet to come. Precompiled headers if they work provide most of the build speed improvements, and everything else Modules v1 supplies has marginal utility for the vast majority of C++ use cases if I am blunt.
I am still hoping for a Modules v2 from the committee which has tangible benefits for the majority of users.
Niall
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost