Before we implement SDL package format for DUB

[eles via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>> Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz 
>>>>> wrote:

> D's an interesting option but it utterly fails the KISS test.

Because there is no std.make or std.build or std.scons or 
std.cmake module to help with that.

> All it would do is provide many tempting and creative ways to 
> accidentally obfuscate the package description file.

I agree partially with this, this is why I am not pushing for D. 
A declarative language seems to be more appropriate in this case.

But we could imagine a declarative layer in/over D or a module 
directed at it. You know, one language to rule them all 
(including declarative languages, just as the functional ones...).

> And then there's meta-mess of needing the right compiler 
> version to properly handle a given package. Blech.

C'mon. This is because D is still running after its own tail. I 
mean, keeps evolving ans is unstable. I bet things will very much 
improve sooner than you think and that D frontend will play a 
role.