Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Andre Pany]

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 11:14:25 UTC, rikki cattermole 
wrote:
> On 13/02/2018 11:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 10:45 +0000, aberba via Digitalmars-d 
>> wrote:
>>>
>> […]
>>> I wish complaints about Dub would include exactly what was
>>> impossible with it. There's no reason to throw dub away and 
>>> start
>>> something new. If one can run cmake before build in dub,  
>>> then a
>>> lot is possible. Those edge cases can be ironed out.
>> 
>> I think there have been many actual complaints made in detail 
>> in this
>> thread.
>> 
>> There is always a reason to replace, because you can build on 
>> what has
>> gone before and do better. CMake is part of the problem.
>> 
>>> Dub fulfills all my use cases so I don't complain. Those here
>>> with not much issue with dub will also not complain. And that
>>> does not make it a minority opinion without stats to prove dub
>>> usage.
>> 
>> No problem, and I guess you'll be happy to carry on using Dub 
>> after
>> something new and better appears. In the case of Maven → 
>> Gradle, many
>> people still use Maven even though it is provably inferior to 
>> Gradle
>> simply because they cannot be bothered to change.
>> 
>>> At point, dub will likely remain the default package 
>>> management
>>> tool. The build functionality can be improved for those who 
>>> deal
>>> with such stuff often. Manpower is what remains.
>> […]
>> 
>> Why should Dub remain the one true way? Just because it was 
>> the first
>> doesn't mean it is the best.
>
> It wasn't the first and it was the best in over a 10 year 
> period.

While I am really suffer from some painful behavior of dub, in my 
opinion it is a great tool and it would damage the D ecosystem to 
go away from dub. Companies already starting investing into this 
tool. In my case, without dub it would not be possible at all to 
use D at work.

The involved developers doing a great job.

Kind regards
André