No, I don't think so. I don't think there is much that is going to change with modules in the future, or at least I'm unaware of any open issues about it. What did you have in mind? The hackathon on Wednesday will be a particularly good time to bounce around your ideas, and is free to attend.
Ouch, "just sad"... would be interested to hear more!
Even if you can't attend, anything you could write up as either a blog post, a Github issue, anything, would be helpful for getting some discussions going around it at the conference I'm sure.
Some people I've talked to have complained that modules aren't objects, and that throwing away the coupling of types and reuse files is "abandoning 30 years of learning" and that "I don't trust myself to be disciplined"
I think that these arguments are not strong! But what would be useful would be some detailed critical thinking on the topic.
My take is that thinking about where you put multiple dispatch parameterized type matched code components is actually a real challenge. The module structure chosen for a library requires "artful" approaches. Perhaps a good workshop on the topic would yield a guide or an approach to making these decisions? Perhaps a labeling system could be evolved to provide metadata for modules better enabling reuse and promoting discover-ability ? Perhaps static analysis of a code base might be provided that gives recommendations (and assistance) for creating good decompositions and associations?
I can't reply to Porker! But.. in reply, yes, I agree, critical analysis is horribly lacking in science atm.
Maybe this is something a plenary could do well - what are the assumptions that underpin some of the things that we are doing? Can we challenge those? Can we pick out the complaints/problems that people outside have about what we are doing?
That's hard for any community to do...
BTW. for the record, I learned years ago that objects did not for a good modularity make...
> But what would be useful would be some detailed critical thinking on the topic.
Detailed critical thinking on any topic would be wonderful. Perhaps I have attended the wrong conferences, but I rarely see presentations like this. We really should think and discuss more and preach our position less in conference settings.