I don't understand this at all. There are modules.
But headers are perfectly fine to deal with and have been for decades and decades! Next you'll be arguing that contents pages in all books should be removed.
What an absurd attitude. The gymnastics to avoid circular inclusions alone are something nobody should be giving a thought to in the 2000s.
"But headers are perfectly fine to deal with and have been for decades and decades!"
I would have thought this was a joke... but your follow-up indicates otherwise.
So what are you going to float next? "So what if people broke their arms hand-cranking their cars to start them! People did it for years, so we shouldn't move to electric starters! Or automatic chokes!"
"And these electric ice boxes are for the birds! Speaking of which: People flying through the air in machines? POPPYCOCK!"
I honestly don't understand. Circular inclusions are something to deal with, but it's a tree.... so how can a leaf contain a branch??
I know C# does some magical things (I know not what) to avoid this since there are no headers so you can refer to something in the same assembly/namespace thingy, but it's very different to how C++ compiles and links?
I wasn't saying that progress should be stinted, but that complaining about something with the expectation that it magically be solved is a strange view of the world. Do you also just assert that poverty and war shouldn't exist?
But headers are perfectly fine to deal with and have been for decades and decades! Next you'll be arguing that contents pages in all books should be removed.