DDT 0.11.0 released

[Trent Forkert via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 19 March 2015 at 15:14:09 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 19/03/2015 14:45, Trent Forkert wrote:
>> It seems you are right that it *is* limited, but it shouldn't 
>> be. CMake
>> emits include/import paths into the project structure. I had 
>> thought it
>> emitted into .project, but evidently emits into .cproject. If 
>> DDT
>> supported a .dproject I could also emit, I could get it to 
>> work.
>
> DDT does support a .dproject ... it's called dub.json ! ;)
>
> I'm dead serious here though. Why would I invent my own file 
> format to describe source folders and include/imports paths 
> when dub.json does that already??

1. I don't consider an XML configuration to be "your own file 
format"
2. For the very reason that started this entire conversation. Not 
everybody *wants* to use dub. Not everybody *can* use dub. So it 
doesn't make sense for DDT to force dub.

> It would be silly to use anything else.

VisualD has done pretty well for itself.

> If you absolutely don't want to use DUB to build things, there 
> are ways to disable the DUB builder, as mentioned before in 
> this thread, and this way you'll use dub.json merely to 
> describe the import path structure of the D project.

This still requires dub for things to work, which isn't an 
acceptable solution.

Using XML the way CDT does also allows something else: GUI 
configuration. Users could then adjust build parameters via a GUI 
the way IDE users would expect to be able to, instead of editing 
a configuration file for a tool they aren't even using.