build system

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-10-26 20:57, Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 2:55 PM, Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 2:51 PM, Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2011 2:30 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> I think the best approach would be to have a complete language for the
>>>> build scripts.
>>>
>>> This is the approach I've taken with dsource.org/projects/cdc. That
>>> language is D. It provides a library of common compilation tasks and
>>> then you fill in the main() with what you want it to do. Then you can
>>> simply invoke dmd -run buildscript.d to create your project.
>>>
>>> At one point it worked with d1 and d2 with ldc, gdc, and dmd, phobos or
>>> tango. But it's been a year or so since I've tested.
>>>
>>> It can also be used as a pass-through tool to dmd, gdc, or ldc, except
>>> it accepts source paths as well as source files (adding all files in the
>>> path to the build). But rdmd may already do this better, since cdc
>>> currently lacks any concept of an incremental build.
>>
>>
>> But my point here isn't so much to promote CDC, bur rather to insist
>> that we should use D instead of a custom language invented for the task.
>> Reasons:
>>
>> 1. D will always be more powerful. And you will have all of phobos at
>> your disposal. You can parse xml, ftp files, etc.
>> 2. Anyone writing this script will already know D. They won't have to
>> learn another language.
>> 3. We'll truly be eating our own dog food. Although I wouldn't call it
>> dog food.
>
> 4. It will be easier to implement. A library of functions instead of a
> complete parser/interpreter. CDC is boost licensed if anyone wants to
> borrow from it.

I'm using Ruby for my package manger Orbit, it's working very well. It 
allows, in my opinion, a cleaner and better looking DSL than D.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg