Trass3r wrote:
> Tom S schrieb:
>>> 2. Can't it be incorporated into dmd?
>>
>> It could. But then, DMD is not the only D compiler and that would add complexity to all of them. Having this functionality in an external tool means that compiler writers only have to include some basic features to support the tool instead of throwing the kitchen sink into the compiler itself.
>>
> 
> Well, I'm just sick of build tools using the dmd source like rebuild. It isn't updated anymore and thus it happens so often that rebuild gets trapped in an infinite loop, furthermore I get confusing double output cause rebuild also outputs pragma msgs etc.
> 
> The newly added -deps parameter in dmd is probably an improvement but I still can't imagine it would be that hard to add this simple functionality directly to the compiler (if it can write out the dependencies, it can also simply just compile them as well, can't it).
> 
> Build tools could then concentrate on functionality that really doesn't need to be provided by the compiler, like everything that dsss itself does.
Have you tired scons?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Spacen Jasset <spacenjasset@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Trass3r wrote:
>>
>> Tom S schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Can't it be incorporated into dmd?
>>>
>>> It could. But then, DMD is not the only D compiler and that would add complexity to all of them. Having this functionality in an external tool means that compiler writers only have to include some basic features to support the tool instead of throwing the kitchen sink into the compiler itself.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I'm just sick of build tools using the dmd source like rebuild. It isn't updated anymore and thus it happens so often that rebuild gets trapped in an infinite loop, furthermore I get confusing double output cause rebuild also outputs pragma msgs etc.
>>
>> The newly added -deps parameter in dmd is probably an improvement but I still can't imagine it would be that hard to add this simple functionality directly to the compiler (if it can write out the dependencies, it can also simply just compile them as well, can't it).
>>
>> Build tools could then concentrate on functionality that really doesn't need to be provided by the compiler, like everything that dsss itself does.
>
> Have you tired scons?

No, but scons has tired me.  I gave it a try for a while, but gave up on it because I wanted something that would make it so I didn't have to worry so much about platform and compiler configurations.

--bb