Same here.


We (collectively) can’t improve our software engineering when are resistant to change.


-- Gaby


From: <> On Behalf Of Titus Winters
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 6:26 AM
To: WG21 Tooling Study Group SG15 <>
Subject: Re: [Tooling] Modules


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 <> wrote:

On 2/1/2019 9:20 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> Titus Winters <> 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 mailing list