Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Pjotr Prins]

On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 02:31:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 19:01:09 Jonathan M Davis via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> As with too much around here, a big part of the issue is 
>> ultimately man power. Even if we could all agree on exactly 
>> how D's build and package management situation should be 
>> solved, actually get the work done is a huge problem.
>
> On that note, I feel that I really should thank Sonke and those 
> few that have helped him write dub. As much as I think that 
> some aspects of dub need to be redesigned, at least they 
> actually went and did something and managed to get it to take 
> off enough that there are quite a few D libraries available 
> using dub. So, while the solution may not be what we want, at 
> least we have a solution.

Absolutely. Dub gets criticism because it is used which is an 
indicator of a successful piece of work. Kudos for anyone who 
pulls that off. Now we just find it is hard to do this well.

As someone involved with software distribution and deployment in 
production systems, my suggestion is to limit the scope of the 
package manager. Best have to do it little, but do it well and 
make most of existing solutions. The goal should really be 
package discovery and making it easy for beginners (autotools and 
configure does not do today, though C gets away with it). 
Thereafter comes a point you have to hand over the deployment 
issue. I strongly suggest not to make it complicated and not to 
try to create a homogeneous development system for all targets. 
I'll write up how I manage my development and deployment some 
time later this year, it may or may not be a good example ;)