Prototype buildsystem "Drake"

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-07-14 04:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/13/11 5:32 PM, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
>> Not trying to be argumentative, but what exactly do you see as the
>> gains in having a D-buildtool built in D (or D-specific build-tool in
>> any language, for that matter)?
>
> I think it's a matter of positioning D and eating one's dogfood. If D is
> inconceivable for the kind of tasks that Python or Ruby are adept at,
> then sure, we could and should use either. On the other hand, if we
> advocate D as a good tool for short scripts, using the competition would
> hurt its brand.
>
> Personally I believe D is plenty adequate for short scripts, of which
> I've written a ton of. So the path of least resistance for a package
> manager or for a build tool is D, not any other language. I'd question
> much harder the decision of using another language (D is, however, not a
> competitor for the likes of bash or make).

Isn't it a competitor for make in this case?

> I see no NIH here. D is an ample language scaling up to large programs
> and down to scripts. If the question is to build a tool from scratch, D
> is the obvious choice and any other choice is just odd. It's like some
> tools I've seen (none successful) that required the competition's
> product to be installed in order to work.
>
>
> Andrei

I though we were talking about what language the build scripts should 
use, not the language the actual build tool should be written in. I 
think these are two separate issues and all tools mentioned (Drake, 
Orbit, Dake) in this thread are implemented in D.

My tools, using Ruby as the scripting language, have Ruby embedded in 
the tool and requires no installation of Ruby.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg