I just created a dub package. Frankly, the whole thign is backward.

[norm]

On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 14:48:47 UTC, drug wrote:
> On 25.04.2022 07:54, norm wrote:
>> On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 20:15:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> So, I have this nice little project, sdc. It builds using 
>>> make, and everything was good. People wanted it to be 
>>> distributed via dub, so be it, let's create a dub.json file.
>>>
>>> [...]
>> 
>> At my company we use Conan for D because the majority of code 
>> is C++. Our D projects are Conan packages using Makefiles or 
>> CMake, just like our C++ projects. It is a pity D decided to 
>> try and reinvent package management when there are battle 
>> hardened options already available that are flexible enough to 
>> just work with D.
>> 
>> Conan is NOT perfect but to date it has just worked and is 
>> much easier when integrating D with C/C++ code and mixed build 
>> systems.
>
> Dub is much more easier than conan (we use it all over the 
> place). Although conan works with binary artifacts in contrast 
> to dub working with source code so dub and conan can't be 
> compared easily.

Conan works with either packaged binaries or packaged sources. I 
think the comparison is valid. I also disagree that dub is 
easier. Sure it is much simpler to get started for trivial 
projects but with any non-trivial project you end up hitting its 
walled garden pretty hard.