That's my point. :-) This is basically about making the concept of a "build system for D" useless, due to D code being inherently capable of building itself.


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
On 11/29/12 2:36 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-11-28 22:24, 1100110 wrote:

Of course. I just can't remember the last time I needed something more
complex than a shell script. It would be *really* nice if the syntax
were nice and simple. Makefiles kick my @$$. Implicit rules, and all
that.

I'm just trying to stop you guys from investing in a new build system
that cannot be used for the whole community.

In most cases I also just need a shell script containing some
compile/link flags. But what I don't like is that I need to duplicate
the shell script, one version for Posix and one version for Windows.
That's why I'm advocating for using build scripts written in a full blow
language that already exists and works cross platform.

Why not use D for that full-blown language? I know you insist on using Ruby, and I fail to grasp why we'd have D users learn Ruby in addition to D, when D is presumably already installed (since this is all about building D programs!) and D is as convenient for build scripting as Ruby.

Andrei



--
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.