I mean, that's fair. :) We're certainly aiming to get to a world where that
secondary build graph layer is machine-managed and generated from source.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bjarne Stroustrup <bjarne_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>
> On 2/1/2019 9:20 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> > Titus Winters <titus_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >> We've been doing explicit statements of the dependency chain for our
> >> codebase for almost 20 years, and I've literally never heard a new hire
> (or
> >> anyone else) say it is a "huge" burden.
> > The question is to what degree. I am sure you don't require new
> > hires to manually specify for each translation unit dependencies
> > on headers it includes, transitively?
> >
> > But that would sure make for a nice hazing ritual.
>
> :-)
>
>
> Seriously, having manual dependency specification is inherently
> error-prone (independent double specification always is), as well as
> extra work. The fact that it is manageable for someone somewhere doesn't
> change that. I suspect its a skills, productivity, and scaling issue.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tooling mailing list
> > Tooling_at_[hidden]
> > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling
>