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

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 18:36:48 UTC, Mark Isaacson wrote:
> From experience, it turns out that having a restricted language 
> to specify your builds/dependencies is a very good thing.

Yes, and it's called a DSL.

> You really don't really want a turning complete language for 
> this; it just makes it harder to reason about.

Not in my experience. Builds that are complicated enough need a 
proper language, and when you do, you'd better hope that whatever 
you're using isn't XML-based (looking at you Ant) or something 
like that.

I've written quite a lot of non-trivial CMake code. The whole 
time I felt like I was bashing my head against the wall and 
everything would've been easier in Python, D, Ruby, whatever.

A good build system description should be declarative as much as 
possible, but turing-complete when needed.

Atila