Lutger Blijdestijn wrote: >Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >> On 2011-06-14 15:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP11 >>> >>> Destroy. >>> >>> >>> Andrei >> >> Instead of complaining about others ideas (I'll probably do that as >> well :) ), here's my idea: >> https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orbit/wiki/Oribt-Package-Manager-for-D >> >> I'm working on both of the tools mentioned in the above link. The >> ideas for the package manager are heavily based on Rubygems. >> > >Looks good, and has a cool name too! I love the reference to the >mars / phobos theme. > >After 'cloning into orbit...', I think I'm missing a ruby ffi binding. >Is it possible to build it already? Or is it too early for that? > >If I'm not mistaken the dependency on ruby is nicely factored into a >very small part of orbit and could easily be replaced if someone would >be inclined to do so. I'd prefer this over ruby, but I prefer ruby >over the dsss format. In the end, what matters is the value of the >tool.
I personally think that ruby is a good choice for the config format (lua, python, whatever would be fine too), as we definitely need a programming language for advanced use cases (debian uses makefiles, which are a pita, but together with bash and external tools they still count as a programming language) It should be noted though that replacing the config syntax later on will be difficult: even if it's factored out nicely in the code, we could have thousands of d packages using the old format. In order not to break those, we'd have to deprecate the old format, but still leave it available for some time, which leads to more dependencies and problems... -- Johannes Pfau
