Jump to page: 1 220  
Page
Thread overview
Is run.d going to be expand for runtime and the phobos library?
Jun 13
kinke
Jun 14
Avrina
Jun 21
Avrina
Jun 13
Seb
std.v2020.algorithm etc[ WAS: Is run.d going to be expand for runtime and the phobos library?]
Jun 13
jmh530
Jun 18
jmh530
Jun 20
Avrina
Jun 20
jmh530
Jun 20
jmh530
Jun 20
jmh530
Jun 20
jmh530
Jun 22
Seb
Jun 22
Seb
Jun 22
Aliak
Jun 24
jmh530
Jun 22
jmh530
Jun 25
jmh530
Jun 13
Dennis
Jun 13
Seb
Jun 13
Dennis
Jun 14
Dennis
Jun 14
Seb
Jun 14
Avrina
Jun 14
Seb
June 12
Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.
June 12
On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.

You leave me guessing what run.d is, and so I have no idea what you are curious about.

— Bastiaan.
June 12
On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.

I assume you are talking about DMD's test runner (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/test/run.d).


There are no concrete plan's AFAICT but I generally like the idea to replace make for the other repos as well.
June 12
On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 08:27:07 UTC, MoonlightSentinel wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.
>
> I assume you are talking about DMD's test runner (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/test/run.d).
>
>
> There are no concrete plan's AFAICT but I generally like the idea to replace make for the other repos as well.

I'm Sorry, I was referring to this:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/build.d
June 12
On 6/12/20 9:42 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 08:27:07 UTC, MoonlightSentinel wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.
>>
>> I assume you are talking about DMD's test runner (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/test/run.d).
>>
>>
>> There are no concrete plan's AFAICT but I generally like the idea to replace make for the other repos as well.
> 
> I'm Sorry, I was referring to this:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/build.d

That should be killed with fire. I have seldom disliked a program this much.
June 13
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 03:33:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/12/20 9:42 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 08:27:07 UTC, MoonlightSentinel wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.
>>>
>>> I assume you are talking about DMD's test runner (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/test/run.d).
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no concrete plan's AFAICT but I generally like the idea to replace make for the other repos as well.
>> 
>> I'm Sorry, I was referring to this:
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/build.d
>
> That should be killed with fire. I have seldom disliked a program this much.

Huh. The Andrei I remember approved the migration away from the DigitalMars Makefiles multiple times.

On the contrary, there are plans to expand build.d for druntime+phobos and the only reason it didn't happen is because I myself consider Phobos as low priority to maintain as it's basically frozen/dead code.

Anyhow, PRs for build.d at druntime/phobos would be merged if someone is interested in this.

June 13
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 03:33:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/12/20 9:42 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 08:27:07 UTC, MoonlightSentinel wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.
>>>
>>> I assume you are talking about DMD's test runner (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/test/run.d).
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no concrete plan's AFAICT but I generally like the idea to replace make for the other repos as well.
>> 
>> I'm Sorry, I was referring to this:
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/build.d
>
> That should be killed with fire. I have seldom disliked a program this much.

It's one of the best pieces of engineering in DMD :)
Shall we delete dmd then? :D
June 13
On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 07:38:22 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2020 at 00:24:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> Quite curious that I never see any attempt on it what so ever.
>
> You leave me guessing what run.d is, and so I have no idea what you are curious about.
>
> — Bastiaan.

(This is a message from a day ago that I forgot to send earlier.)

TL;DR
See the Readme file here: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/tree/v2.092.1/test and run.d itself: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/v2.092.1/test/run.d.
Also you can check: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/v2.092.1/src/build.d

---

The basic idea is that we're replacing the ugly makefile mess with a build and test system written in pure D. The advantages going for a pure D solution are numerous:
- Developers and package maintainers need less external dependencies to build and test the code
- There are several Make(1) implementations (e.g. GNUmake, BSDmake, DMmake [1]) each with different feature sets and limitations. This was especially a problem on Windows, as DMmake has much more limited feature set then GNUmake, which prevented us from having a single cross-platform Makefile and instead we had to maintain posix.mak, win32.mak and win64.mak
- AFAIK, installing a GNUmake on Windows involves installing a whole Posix emulation/compatibility environment like cygwin, msys or msys2, which brings it's own rats nest of problems
- Even if Make is not a problem, it is still dependent on Posix compatible shell, so that's one more variable in the equation
- By implementing the full build system in D we have much more flexibility and it's easier to troubleshoot problems. Also we can implement features which are unlikely to ever become part of make, but would be useful for us.
- For example, it's we can tune the scheduling of the test runner relatively easily, while with Make we he no control over that (it's just doing topological sorting, without any semantic understanding of what each target represents).
- And quite a few other benefits...


[1]: https://digitalmars.com/ctg/make.html
June 13
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 03:33:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> That should be killed with fire. I have seldom disliked a program this much.

If anything should be killed with fire that should probably be the use of DDoc macros in dlang.org. It's a prime example of https://wiki.c2.com/?JobSecurity, but with the difference with that analogy that the only people needing that job security had already quit and now the whole thing is so messed up that no one can fix it without rewriting it from scratch.
June 13
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 03:33:14 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> That should be killed with fire. I have seldom disliked a program this much.

I think the most accurate way to classify your message is as "shitposting", which according to the (5th) definition in the Urban Dictionary [1] is:
1: The failure to make a constructive post
2: The inability to add useful information to a forum
3: Worthless overly offensive generally racists posts written in a manner which aggravates others.
4: Nrom

Andrei, please use a more professional demeanor.

[1]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shitposting

« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11