Why modules is so strongly limited?

[imbaFireFenix via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 09:36:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Java does basically the same thing (though they take it even 
> farther, since they only allow one, public class per module), 
> and IIRC, a number of other languages do as well (haskell does 
> from what I recall, and python might; I don't remember
Really! I don't know any people who migrate from namespace to 
module/package system and don't hate this.

> If we didn't do it that way, then it would be a lot harder to 
> figure out where all of the code for a given module was
Sure, more flexibility - more complicated.
But that not impossible...
Or it can be enabled or disabled by compiler pararms...

> while some folks may find it occasionally annoying, most of use 
> have no problem whatosever with modules being files and 
> packages being directories.
Using modules like [namespaces + include] not prohibit using 1 
file == [1 class | 1 module], there is expand possibilities for 
beautifuly implementation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For me the best way as C#:
All files in project file - including at compilation, but in code 
- mount only at defined scope point (call for namespace unit or 
using/import whole namespace)

Don't need file or part of module? - Exclude from project.