[OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 06/08/2015 03:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:17:03 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>> I wonder when they will realize that a clean break is necessary.  36
>> years is far too long for a language to keep building on top of the
>> past.  Intel has been hurt by this with x86 recently, probably
>> Microsoft with Windows too.
>
> There's no point in C++ having a clean break. If you're doing that, you
> might as well just create a new language like D. If C++ had a clean
> break, it wouldn't be C++ anymore, and many of the folks who continue to
> use C++ are the ones who want it to be backwards compatible. Arguably,
> if anything, languages like D and Rust _are_ the clean break.
>

Exactly the point. A clean break is both needed and available, however, 
gigantic resources are still being poured into patching up C++ anyway, 
instead of putting those resources into finally jumping ship. C++ is 
programmer heroin.