Before we implement SDL package format for DUB

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/27/2014 1:40 AM, eles wrote:
> 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.

All reasonable points, but it still seems like swatting a fly with a 
bazooka. ;)