On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 05:51:58 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 12:06:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 07:00:18 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> I'm currently considering (because of dmd, druntime and phobos) how to strip it down to its bare essentials and have a core set of source files that only knows how to build D code, i.e. no C/C++, no dub, no make/ninja.
>>
>> Why strip?
>
> I meant "strip" in a general sense, not in the sense of stripping symbols.
>
> Atila

I still agree with what he says. ninja and make have had countless manhours poured into them, from optimizations to bugfixes. D community seems obsessed with NIH.

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 06:59:26 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
> On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 05:51:58 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 12:06:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 07:00:18 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>>> I'm currently considering (because of dmd, druntime and phobos) how to strip it down to its bare essentials and have a core set of source files that only knows how to build D code, i.e. no C/C++, no dub, no make/ninja.
>>>
>>> Why strip?
>>
>> I meant "strip" in a general sense, not in the sense of stripping symbols.
>>
>> Atila
>
> I still agree with what he says. ninja and make have had countless manhours poured into them, from optimizations to bugfixes. D community seems obsessed with NIH.

I'm personally more than ok with using ninja (as mentioned previously, make is slow). Or tup, which I plan to add a backend for.

But... if we're to think of replacing the current Makefiles for dmd, druntime and phobos, and if the build descriptions that are to replace them are to be truly cross-platform, then a binary backend is needed and a stripped down version that won't clutter the repositories desired.

The version available on dub will always be one with all the features turned on.

Atila

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 08:00:12 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> But... if we're to think of replacing the current Makefiles for dmd, druntime and phobos, and if the build descriptions that are to replace them are to be truly cross-platform, then a binary backend is needed and a stripped down version that won't clutter the repositories desired.

I think, they are useful. Why do you think they would clutter the repositories?

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 08:47:21 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 08:00:12 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> But... if we're to think of replacing the current Makefiles for dmd, druntime and phobos, and if the build descriptions that are to replace them are to be truly cross-platform, then a binary backend is needed and a stripped down version that won't clutter the repositories desired.
>
> I think, they are useful. Why do you think they would clutter the repositories?

I obviously think they're useful as well. As to the clutter, it's the vibe I get from the people who maintain them. I'm just trying to make reggae easier to adopt.

Atila