OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Hello Yigal,
> 
>> C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
>> you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D
>> source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external libs.
>> you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's
>> search path or provide the full path otherwise.
> 
> pagma(lib, ...); //?

that's a compiler directive. nothing prevents a C# compiler to implement 
this. In general though this is a bad idea. why would you want to embed 
such outside data inside your code? info needed for building your task 
should not be part of the code. what if I want to rename the lib, do I 
have to recompile everything? what if I don't have the source? what if I 
want to change the version? what if I want to switch a vendor for this lib?

> 
>> Same thing with assemblies.
>> you have to provide that meta-data (lib names) anyway both in C# and
>> D. the only difference is that C# (correctly) recognizes that this is
>> the better default.
> 
> IMHO the c# way is the /worse/ default. Based on that being my opinion, 
> I think we have found where we will have to disagree. Part of my 
> reasoning is that in the normal case, for practical reasons, that file 
> will have to be maintained by an IDE, thus /requiring/ development to be 
> in an IDE of some kind. In D, that data in can normally be part of the 
> source code, and only in unusual cases does it need to be formally 
> codified.
> 
>