November 28, 2012
On 2012-11-27 17:04, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Even with --shebang there are odd limitations of the shebang line length
> etc. I think it would make sense to add options in the form of a
> stylized comment below the shebang line. That comment can be read and
> parsed by rdmd appropriately. For example:
>
> #!/usr/bin/rdmd
> /**rdmdoptions
> -L-lmylib
> */
> ...
>
> What would be some useful options to add, aside from those already
> supported?

I don't know why anyone would bother implementing this. What's needed is a proper build tool. That includes build scripts that can be written in a full blow language.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
November 28, 2012
I think that would be a huge mistake. Why would anyone want to invent a full blown language and a big pain in the butt just to build a project if the project can build itself by looking at the source code?


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-11-27 17:04, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>  Even with --shebang there are odd limitations of the shebang line length
>> etc. I think it would make sense to add options in the form of a stylized comment below the shebang line. That comment can be read and parsed by rdmd appropriately. For example:
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/rdmd
>> /**rdmdoptions
>> -L-lmylib
>> */
>> ...
>>
>> What would be some useful options to add, aside from those already supported?
>>
>
> I don't know why anyone would bother implementing this. What's needed is a proper build tool. That includes build scripts that can be written in a full blow language.
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg
>



-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.


November 28, 2012
On 11/28/12 10:43 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
> How about:
>
> //! -L-lmylib

Sux for multiple lines.

Andrei

November 28, 2012
On 11/28/12 10:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-11-27 17:04, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> Even with --shebang there are odd limitations of the shebang line length
>> etc. I think it would make sense to add options in the form of a
>> stylized comment below the shebang line. That comment can be read and
>> parsed by rdmd appropriately. For example:
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/rdmd
>> /**rdmdoptions
>> -L-lmylib
>> */
>> ...
>>
>> What would be some useful options to add, aside from those already
>> supported?
>
> I don't know why anyone would bother implementing this. What's needed is
> a proper build tool. That includes build scripts that can be written in
> a full blow language.

I disagree.

Andrei
November 28, 2012
But not as bad as the "rdmdoptions".

//! line1
//! line2
//! line3

Doesn't look THAT terrible.


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 11/28/12 10:43 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>
>> How about:
>>
>> //! -L-lmylib
>>
>
> Sux for multiple lines.
>
> Andrei
>
>


-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.


November 28, 2012
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 15:51:50 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
> I think that would be a huge mistake. Why would anyone want to invent a
> full blown language and a big pain in the butt just to build a project if
> the project can build itself by looking at the source code?

The build system could be a library written in D, then you wouldn't need to invent a new language.
November 28, 2012
Precisely!


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM, jerro <a@a.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 15:51:50 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>
>> I think that would be a huge mistake. Why would anyone want to invent a full blown language and a big pain in the butt just to build a project if the project can build itself by looking at the source code?
>>
>
> The build system could be a library written in D, then you wouldn't need to invent a new language.
>



-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.


November 28, 2012
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 17:02:25 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
> Precisely!
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM, jerro <a@a.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 15:51:50 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>>
>>> I think that would be a huge mistake. Why would anyone want to invent a
>>> full blown language and a big pain in the butt just to build a project if
>>> the project can build itself by looking at the source code?
>>>
>>
>> The build system could be a library written in D, then you wouldn't need
>> to invent a new language.

I mean't writing a D build library and using it to write build scripts separate from the source files that are being build. That's quite different from embedding build instructions into comments inside the source files.
November 28, 2012
Still better, then a completely separate thing.


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, jerro <a@a.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 17:02:25 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>
>> Precisely!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM, jerro <a@a.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 15:51:50 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>>>
>>>  I think that would be a huge mistake. Why would anyone want to invent a
>>>> full blown language and a big pain in the butt just to build a project
>>>> if
>>>> the project can build itself by looking at the source code?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The build system could be a library written in D, then you wouldn't need to invent a new language.
>>>
>>
> I mean't writing a D build library and using it to write build scripts separate from the source files that are being build. That's quite different from embedding build instructions into comments inside the source files.
>



-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.


November 28, 2012
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 16:59:25 UTC, jerro wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 15:51:50 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>> I think that would be a huge mistake. Why would anyone want to invent a
>> full blown language and a big pain in the butt just to build a project if
>> the project can build itself by looking at the source code?
>
> The build system could be a library written in D, then you wouldn't need to invent a new language.

That would be very nice. I'm currently not at all happy with the build systems I've tried out and I'd definitely be willing to try something new.

I also don't like having to learn a separate complicated script language that has no use other than to build a project - to me that's a massive time sink that should be unnecessary.

The ultimate would be for D to build itself, but of course you'll need to configure something to tell it where to build to, where to install to, etc.

I just don't see why building a source project has to be difficult, or why build systems have to be so terrible at doing it.

--rt

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home