build in the compiler was Re: version and debug statements

[Chad J]

Ameer Armaly wrote:
> "Mike Parker" <aldacron71 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:e43e2l$svk$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Does it really matter? Having extra functionality in one tool is a 
>>convenience I find attractive. I hate having multiple tools in a tool 
>>chain. The more functionality Build gives me in one package, the better.
> 
> I agree with your philosophy on tool chains, which is exactly why I advocate 
> the full-build functionality being in the compiler proper.  As to the macro 
> processor and related components, I just don't see any logical grouping for 
> them along with project building, thus they should be in their own plugin. 
> 
> 

I also agree with that all-in-one package ideal.  Simple experience has 
shown me that I do NOT enjoy hunting down multiple downloads, learning 
multiple interfaces, and dealing with a number of things that are 
totally unnecessary in about 99% of cases.

That said, I feel the argument against merging build and dmd is a good 
one.  Let Derek and Walter work in their most efficient ways.

My suggestion would be to bundle executables, not source.  Just stick a 
sufficiently recent version of build in with every release of dmd. 
Document its functionality along side dmd's, at least in a basic "heads 
up" sorta way.  This would save a very unnecessary step for every new D 
user on the path to having an intuitive setup for coding in D.

My typical routine for setting up D on a new computer looks like this:

Download/install dm linker
Download/install dmd compiler
Download build, toss build.exe into /dmd/bin
Set up environment paths as needed
(move onto other more specialized stuff here, like multimedia)


We could at least get rid of one step there.