Idea: std.build instead of dub and make-like tools

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On 03/17/2016 07:15 AM, Piotrek wrote:
> As for dub I don't think it is unrelated. Why std.build couldn't be
> dependency manager?

For same reason you don't want to distribute any other non-trivial tools
as sources :) Compilation takes time and has non-trivial dependencies
(i.e. networking libraries, git providers etc.), you simply can't put
that stuff as a stdlib module/package and expect developers to compile
it each time.

Even mature build tool would be too complicated to fit into std.build
concept - however there is a real benefit in supporting more simple
build system that doesn't try to be performant and robust, as that can
be used to bootstrap building compiler distribution itself.

> What about:
> std.build = part of reggae + part of dub

Tight coupling of dependency management and build tool in one entity is
just too inflexible. This is single biggest issue I have with dub in its
current form.