On Sun, 2015-02-08 at 08:57 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: […]
> * One more language for the maintainers to know and use. On the other hand by replacing Make you lose two languages, so total one less language to know. > * One more dependency. Although scripting languages are ubiquitous > enough, I can tell from direct experience that versioning and dependent > packages can be quite a hassle. This applies to the entire D infrastructure (and also the C, C++, Make, Bash,..), versioning in all systems is currently a serious problem, possibly insoluble, so this would not be a new thing at all. > * Escaping into a high-level language seems as much "cheating" as > escaping into a low-level language. If C or C++ would be needed instead > of D for a task, it is worthwhile exploring how to make D a better > replacement for them . This has been historically a good and important > goal to pursue. Similarly I'd rather explore what it takes to expand D > into high-level territory instead of escaping into a high-level language. I definitely agree this is a good thing, but I have yet to see a good build system with serious traction that is purely statically typed and compiled. Maybe D could be different. Perhaps another GSoC 2015 project in here? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
