Is run.d going to be expand for runtime and the phobos library?
Andrei Alexandrescu
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Sun Jun 14 17:40:04 UTC 2020
On 6/14/20 1:05 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 June 2020 at 16:07:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 18:56:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> The original Andrei, just like today's Andrei, has an appreciation
>>> for good engineering. I didn't feel the need to add to provide detail
>>> because (a) most regulars in this forum already knew what I was going
>>> to say, and (b) nobody save for a few would share my opinion.
>>>
>>> But, I'll bite again, again to regret it.
>>
>> I'll reply with similar regrets, because I agree that this discussion
>> isn't helping anyone.
>
> It's helping me.
>
> [big snip of clarifying context and concise refutations of many earlier
> assertions]
>
> Thanks Seb, for the context, the refutations, and for the references to
> alternative tools (rund, reggae).
Most of said refutations are reducible to simple misunderstandings. A
few are due to my oversights. A few are Seb's. My core point stays:
build.d is not Good Work(tm), and can't be talked into it. It must be
worked into it.
I don't want the makefiles back. I want Good Work, which build.d has a
good way to go toward. A good part of my critique can be addressed by
refactoring build.d in the ways I suggested. Another part of the
critique would be achieved by a pass through its design, with an eye for
making dependency syntax tolerable.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list