C++ header+source files vs. "modules"

[joe]

Joshua Maurice wrote (In thread: "No unanswered question"):

Oh yes. I am not advocating changing C++ itself at all. I am merely
advocating abandoning GNU Make and all other incorrect incremental
build systems in favor of correct incremental build systems. Old
projects which use Make can continue to use Make, but new projects
would hopefully have build scripts of an incrementally correct build
system.

From "what I have read/been reading/been interested by and in", I
ascertain that C++ cannot compete (in the realm of fun and efficient
software development) with the likes of languages with a compilation
system that consists of modules rather than header+source files. I
"gather", that it is like going from pencil to pen (and being able to
write 100 times faster!). <the obvious question omitted>

<your questions here please>

 

[Joshua Maurice]

Joshua Maurice wrote (In thread: "No unanswered question"):



From "what I have read/been reading/been interested by and in", I
ascertain that C++ cannot compete (in the realm of fun and efficient
software development) with the likes of languages with a compilation
system that consists of modules rather than header+source files. I
"gather", that it is like going from pencil to pen (and being able to
write 100 times faster!). <the obvious question omitted>

<your questions here please>

I think you are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and I can't
really refute any claims because there's little to no objective
evidence on either side. There's a lot of vague implications too, some
of which I cannot follow. What's the pencil and pen metaphor supposed
to mean? I like pencils.