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

[Piotrek via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 09:51:07 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> Could you explain what is overcomplicated and inconvenient? I'd 
> love some feedback and to be able to fix it.

This is rather broad topic and most of the points are related to 
different view on design goal for build tool. Let me try to list 
general comments (remember that they are not bugs but mostly 
consequences of chosen requirements)

1. Unnecessary reliance on external backends.
2. Not "slim" syntax
I have similar view on the syntax as Dicebot: 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/vqdhbplqezgdmgumfxte@forum.dlang.org

> I don't think mixing up dependency management and build systems 
> is a good idea. I made an explicit decision to defer all 
> dependency management to dub.

Yeah, that's additional complexity IMO. I still don't see a good 
reason this has to be separated.

Piotrek