I just read the slides of a talk from that latest LLVM Developers' Meeting. It's a talk about modules by Doug Gregor from Apple. It seems that they already have started to implement this new feature in Clang.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Jacob Carlborg:

> I just read the slides of a talk from that latest LLVM Developers' Meeting. It's a talk about modules by Doug Gregor from Apple. It seems that they already have started to implement this new feature in Clang.

It's from the conference I have recently linked two slide packs here. The slides you refer are:

http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf

Bye,
bearophile

On 2012-11-17 12:30, bearophile wrote:

> It's from the conference I have recently linked two slide packs here.
> The slides you refer are:
>
> http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf

Thanks, I forgot the link.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 11/17/12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf

Page 36:

import std.stdio;

Hmm. :)

Is it a good idea to reuse local modules in debugger? The debugged code can be compiled with a different version of module.

Am 17.11.2012 12:03, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> I just read the slides of a talk from that latest LLVM Developers'
> Meeting. It's a talk about modules by Doug Gregor from Apple. It seems
> that they already have started to implement this new feature in Clang.
>

Thanks for the heads up.

I remember reading his early work, and how C and C++ might add these extensions into the standards, depending on how clang experience goes.

Getting modules into C and C++ might be a feature less in D versus those
languages comparisasion, but it will increase the lives of those that have to use them.

--
Paulo

On Saturday, 17 November 2012 at 11:03:18 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I just read the slides of a talk from that latest LLVM Developers' Meeting. It's a talk about modules by Doug Gregor from Apple. It seems that they already have started to implement this new feature in Clang.

It's about time...

I honestly cannot believe that this wasn't #1 priority for C++11. Everyone that uses C++ for a living knows that compilation time is the biggest practical problem with C++, yet the standards committee seems completely unaware of this.

Herb Sutter posted a poll recently asking what people wanted most from their C++ compiler. In the poll options he had things such as conformance, safety, runtime performance, but didn't even think to add compile time performance. Of course, everyone in the comments wasn't pleased with this.

http://herbsutter.com/2012/10/03/poll-what-features-would-you-like-to-see-added-soonest-in-your-favorite-c-compiler/

I get the feeling that the C++ standards committee was formed to serve Boost developers.

Am 18.11.2012 18:51, schrieb Peter Alexander:
> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 at 11:03:18 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> I just read the slides of a talk from that latest LLVM Developers'
>> Meeting. It's a talk about modules by Doug Gregor from Apple. It seems
>> that they already have started to implement this new feature in Clang.
>
> It's about time...
>
> I honestly cannot believe that this wasn't #1 priority for C++11.
> Everyone that uses C++ for a living knows that compilation time is the
> biggest practical problem with C++, yet the standards committee seems
> completely unaware of this.
>
> Herb Sutter posted a poll recently asking what people wanted most from
> their C++ compiler. In the poll options he had things such as
> conformance, safety, runtime performance, but didn't even think to add
> compile time performance. Of course, everyone in the comments wasn't
> pleased with this.
>
> http://herbsutter.com/2012/10/03/poll-what-features-would-you-like-to-see-added-soonest-in-your-favorite-c-compiler/
>
>
> I get the feeling that the C++ standards committee was formed to serve
> Boost developers.

Sometimes I feel the same. Nowadays I work mostly with JVM/.NET languages and every time I do something in C++, I really hate the compile times.

I really don't understand why no one added modules to C and C++, taking into consideration that the other systems programming languages of the time already had them.

--
Paulo

On 11/18/2012 12:17 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> I really don't understand why no one added modules to C and C++, taking into
> consideration that the other systems programming languages of the time already
> had them.

There was a proposal to add modules to C++11, but it failed to gather much interest.

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:53:59 Walter Bright wrote:
> There was a proposal to add modules to C++11, but it failed to gather much interest.

Honestly, it's the sort of thing that I would have thought wouldn't even be possible in C++, because it would require too much of a redesign and would break backwards compatibility. There a lot of things like that in C++ which are completely unfixable without breaking backwards compatibility, and if you're doing that, you might as well go all the way and create a new language, since there are so many things that should be fixed/changed that it wouldn't really be C++ anymore by the time that you were done (it would probably be something much closer to D). It'll be interesting to see how they actually implement a module feature.

Also, I think that so many C/C++ devs are so used to the compile times that they get with them that it's nowhere near the top of the list of features that they want. It probably didn't even occur to many of them. Not to mention, if you think that fixing the problem isn't really even feasible (and I have no idea how it's feasible as long as the pre-processor or textual inclusion is involved), then it's definitely not going to be on the list of things that you're asking for.

- Jonathan M Davis