Git, the D package manager

Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Feb 5 09:01:07 PST 2015


Am 03.02.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d:
> On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 13:19 +0000, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
>> Why not invest your time into improving dub and adding these
>> features, we don't need another tool. Improving dub would have a
>> much bigger impact than making another tool that is almost
>> certainly never going to get used because very few tools ever get
>> to that level.
>
> Because they feel that Dub is fundamentally flawed as the future
> solution to D (C++/C) build?
>>
>> Honestly it seems like a huge waist of time and very counter
>> productive.
>
> I disagree. This sort of argument was made before Dub and yet Dub
> happened.
>
> If people want to improve on Dub and replace it by doing exactly that,
> that seems like the best way forward.
>
> I have just realized why I think Dub will not be the future of D build…
>

Thanks for that kick in the teeth. I'm now just left wondering what it 
is that is "fundamentally flawed". Everything mentioned so far is either 
bugs or missing functionality, or rather just mostly missing convenience.

Things may not (yet) be ideal, but fundamentally DUB is nothing more 
than a tool built on a defined abstract package description format (vs. 
a procedural build description). If you (or anyone else for that matter) 
want to say that using a descriptive format is fundamentally flawed then 
I'd be grateful for some additional substantiation. Otherwise there is 
nothing "fundamental" in the system that I know of.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list