Have Win DMD use gmake instead of a separate DMMake makefile?

Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net
Fri Aug 16 05:33:37 PDT 2013


On 08/13/2013 12:48 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> But you're missing the bigger picture. What I envision is that this D
> build tool will go beyond merely building DMD/druntime/Phobos. If it's
> successful, it can become the *standard* D build tool for all D
> programs. Having a standard D build tool will go a long way in making D
> programs portable and easy to install, besides freeing us from a
> dependency on make.

Can I suggest then that you write such a tool _first and foremost_ as a build
system for arbitrary D programs (or preferably, arbitrary programs without
reference to the language...)?  Then, if it gets uptake, proves a success, etc.,
we can consider whether it makes sense for the core D stuff.

The thing is that at the end of the day, make may have its problems but it is a
well understood tool that is readily accessible to many developers and across
platforms.  It also means that the build system is not dependent on one or two D
hackers, who might fall under a bus, get a new job, whatever.

I really don't see the benefits of accepting the maintenance burden for a custom
build system, with all the potential bottlenecks that introduces, compared to
focusing on the things that really matter -- frontend, runtime, and standard
library.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list