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