"uri"  wrote in message news:glxybpnqadqnfnixkfxj@forum.dlang.org...

> I think I'd much rather GNU make.
>
> No offence, but there's no chance your little tool will ever get the same test coverage or real-world use testing of GNU make on Windows.
>
> This is why I prefer CMake like tools over dub. Plus make -jX is *much* faster than dub build (and SCons for that matter).

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  It's a script that runs tests, I don't care how well real-world tested it is. 

On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 17:47:10 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Dicebot"  wrote in message news:jrymzqkdctmfsgrqzfmm@forum.dlang.org...
>
>> How is it really different? Both require external tool, both are available via prebuilt windows binary. At least you can build GNU one yourself.
>
> Because I already have to install dmc and dm make comes with that.

Not really. I personally used msvcc when investigating dmd failures on Windows and was forced to download dmc only for dmake. I don't think it is uncommon.

05-Dec-2014 03:02, Trent Forkert пишет:
> On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 19:52:12 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> 04-Dec-2014 18:32, Dicebot пишет:
>>> Please no additional 3d-party dependencies for D core tool stack.
>>
>> What are current 3rd-party deps? Dependency on DMC make and compiler
>> is already there, GNU make is not installed by default on FreeBSD.
>>
>> What would you suggest we do?
>
> Do what many large open source projects do: support multiple build
> systems. There is no reason that the addition of SCons/CMake build files
> to DMD would require the removal of the existing makefiles. It just
> means somebody has to do a little maintenance when source files are
> added/removed/renamed.

There is no point in having to maintain both. The whole idea to use other (sane) build system instead of make and so far (to me) CMake seems like the best option because it generates next to anything else.

D is unique in its schizophrenic tendency to try hard and no have dependencies only to introduce some subtle and stupid ones. For instance, out-dated zlib is hard-wired, curl is bundled separately on Windows and needs special library version of it on Linux (AFAIK), and lastly we need C++ compiler and specifically GLIBC on Linux.

Thousands of projects use CMake, likewise SCons.
It's an arbitrary choice to support DM make and GNU make:
apt-get install build-esential
is nowhere harder then
apt-get install scons
or apt-get cmake for that matter.

Downloading DMC++ is nowhere harder then downloading SCons or CMake. In both cases one needs to adjust PATH. Building OpenSource software on Windows was (and still is) a PITA for most Windows developers because they don't even know about console, PATH and how compiler actually is invoked. NOTHING is going to change that, MS made sure developers don't look into console at all costs.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

05-Dec-2014 04:47, Daniel Murphy пишет:
> "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message
> news:mailman.2688.1417735514.9932.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
>> > >
>> > >What would you suggest we do?
>> >
>> > Write a build script in D?
>>
>> +1.
>
> I mean, a D compiler is an additional dependency, but it's one we're
> already planning to add for dmd.

Well I might do just that once I complete my SCons proof of concept.

Do I take it right that nobody would be opposed to a D build tool (somewhat dumb but no worse then makefiles) ?

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 01:34:20AM +0300, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 05-Dec-2014 04:47, Daniel Murphy пишет:
> >"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.2688.1417735514.9932.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> >
> >>> >
> >>> >What would you suggest we do?
> >>>
> >>> Write a build script in D?
> >>
> >>+1.
> >
> >I mean, a D compiler is an additional dependency, but it's one we're already planning to add for dmd.
> 
> Well I might do just that once I complete my SCons proof of concept.
> 
> Do I take it right that nobody would be opposed to a D build tool (somewhat dumb but no worse then makefiles) ?
[...]

Not only I'm not opposed to it, I'd welcome it. Especially if it can be made generic and work with other projects. (In the future, of course, that's a bit too ambitious to shoot for that in an initial stab at it.)


T

-- 
If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one? -- Abraham Lincoln

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 01:34:20 +0300
Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> 05-Dec-2014 04:47, Daniel Murphy пишет:
> > "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.2688.1417735514.9932.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> >
> >> > >
> >> > >What would you suggest we do?
> >> >
> >> > Write a build script in D?
> >>
> >> +1.
> >
> > I mean, a D compiler is an additional dependency, but it's one we're already planning to add for dmd.
> 
> Well I might do just that once I complete my SCons proof of concept.
> 
> Do I take it right that nobody would be opposed to a D build tool (somewhat dumb but no worse then makefiles) ?
as long as makefiles will stay there and will not require additional tools installed -- do anything.