> sidestepping the lack of modules and packaging for instance.
I'm tired of that nitpicking. These tools happen to be outside of the language for historical reasons and probably C compatibility. It's not in the language because apparently not enough people care.
And I think that the ideal way is standardizing of the OS package management first, not having a package manager (or several) for each language. But it won't happen for OS business reasons.
Considering modules are a major feature in C++20, I doubt the standards committee considers this language gap a "nit".
There are properties of C++, like textual inclusion, that make shipping and maintaining code hard. Piling up header files and expecting downstream users to understand how the include search path will work is the current approach. I would just label it realistic more than a best practice. If it's a best practice for packaging, that is only because the current options are so disatisfying.
And all of that is basically orthogonal to whether you use a language specific package manager or an OS specific one.
I'm tired of that nitpicking. These tools happen to be outside of the language for historical reasons and probably C compatibility. It's not in the language because apparently not enough people care.
And I think that the ideal way is standardizing of the OS package management first, not having a package manager (or several) for each language. But it won't happen for OS business reasons.