On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:05:32PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 9/24/14, 6:54 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 05:37:37PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via
> >Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>On 9/24/14, 4:48 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>>You're misrepresenting my position.*In spite of their current
> >>>flaws*, modern build systems like SCons and Tup already far exceed
> >>>make in their basic capabilities and reliability.
> >>
> >>Fair enough, thanks. Anyhow the point is, to paraphrase Gandhi: "Be
> >>the change you want to see in dlang's build system" :o). -- Andrei
> >
> >Well, Cliff & I (and whoever's interested) will see what we can do
> >about that. Perhaps in the not-so-distant future we may have a D
> >build tool that can serve as the go-to build tool for D projects.
>
> Sounds like a fun project. In case you'll allow me an opinion: I think
> dependency management is important for D, but a build tool is highly
> liable to become a distraction. Other ways to improve dependency
> management are likely to be more impactful.
[...]
Clearly, the more automatic dependency management can be, the better.
In an ideal world, one should be able to say, "here is my source tree,
and here's the file that contains main()", and the build tool should
automatically figure out all the dependencies as well as how to compile
the sources into the final executable. In pseudocode, all one needs to
write should in theory be simply:
Program("mySuperApp", "src/main.d");
and everything else will be automatically figured out.
But of course, this is currently not yet fully practical. So some amount
of manual dependency specification will be needed. But the idea is to
keep those minimal.
T
--
This is a tpyo.
