Yeah, my personal opinion is that modules are dead on arrival, but I won't waste my time arguing with C++ enthusiasts on that.

Nah I'm a C++ (ex?) enthusiast and modules are cool but there's only so many decades you can wait for a feature other languages have from day 1, and then another decade for compilers to actually implement it in a usable manner.

I am fine with waiting for a feature and using it when it's here. But at this point, I feel like C++ modules are a ton of complexity for users, tools, and compilers to wrangle... for what? Slightly faster compile times than PCH? Less preprocessor code in your C++.. maybe? Doesn't seem worth it to me in comparison.

I would think they don't want to hear that because of how badly they want modules to happen. Don't kill their hope!

Author here. Sadly, this had to be done, otherwise you would not see anything on the chart. I added an extra progress bar below, so that people would not get a wrong impression.

Hey, sorry about that. I find your site very charming. Yeah it takes a few seconds to understand, but that's completely fine imo.

You are excused if the site misleads anybody, just because you published "Estimated completion date: 2195". That's just so awesome. Kudos.

Hey, I really appreciate this site! Independent from my personal opinion on modules, I think it's extremely helpful to everyone to see the current state of development; and you do an excellent job reflecting that.

Thanks <3 Working on this project also made me realize that cpp needs something like crates.io. We are using vcpkg as a second-best guess for cpp library usages, because it has more packages than sites like conan. Also adding support of things like import statement list, shows that there needs to be a naming convention, because now we have this wild mix:

- import boost.type_index;

- import macro-defined;

- import BS.thread_pool;