alt Hacker NewsAgain, they had a sufficiently complete implementation. That implementation was in Visual Studio, clang had a very different implementation. The standard decided to take the Microsoft version. There are pros and cons to both and I will not fault the decision but either way one of the two had to lose and there is no surprise that for something complex it will take a long time to reimplement it to whatever the new standard is.
If the implementation really was sufficiently complete, then this is even worse! Why did they choose to vote something into the standard that is very complex and difficult to implement, but does not live up to the promises? Maybe they thought it would improve in the future, but isn't this a huge gamble?
I have heard rumors that certain people in the Visual Studio team have exaggerated the state of their modules implementation to speedrun the standardization process. I have no idea if that is really true, but it would explain a lot of things...
I'm not the only one who is asking these questions:
> I don’t know if they exaggerated their claims at the time, or if they didn’t properly fund the Visual Studio team since or what, but you can’t tell me 8 years wasn’t enough to make syntax highlighting work with modules. And if it is, then maybe there was something deeply wrong in their proposal and the committee should have asked to see the receipts before voting yes.
https://mropert.github.io/2026/04/13/modules_in_2026/