<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I completely agree. I definitely believe that work on a new build
tool is worthwhile especially if it has built in support for D. It's
a shame that so many build tools at the moment are being developed
using interpreted languages, it's obviously for the benefits of
creating DSLs that extend the base language itself. They tend to
suffer from slowness though (my subjective opinion <span
class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span>).<br>
<br>
I don't think building the tool in D is a good idea either for
reasons mentioned by Ulrik. It's worth considering using <a
href="http://www.lua.org/">Lua</a> or <a
href="http://iolanguage.com/">Io</a> for the build description
language but writing the tool in C (or other).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07/13/11 23:32, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC-4XGv-TVsQ=jhnD=W7zDW6WT1otkQULKJ7zik66=Mq3MvH9A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2011/7/13 Nick Sabalausky <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:a@a.a"><a@a.a></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Jacob Carlborg" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:doob@me.com"><doob@me.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:ivke5k$2m78$1@digitalmars.com">news:ivke5k$2m78$1@digitalmars.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
First I have to say that I know you are doing this because you want to use
D as the language for the build scripts. The reason I did choose Ruby
because I think D will be too verbose and when I'm looking at drakefile.d
I do think it's too verbose.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yea, D is likely to be a little more verbose than what could be done in Ruby
(or Python). Personally, I think that's well worth it, though. I don't know
how many others would agree or not.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Not trying to be argumentative, but what exactly do you see as the
gains in having a D-buildtool built in D (or D-specific build-tool in
any language, for that matter)? Seriously, I'm really asking, since
I'm having a hard time seeing it? Personally, I can only see the
drawbacks;
* Building druntime and phobos might be difficult with a d-based buildtool
* The build-tool itself will need bootstrapping. A user that wants to
test some D-project, will first have to aquire (build) and install
some D-compiler with custom tools. Then install druntime with another
custom build-system. Then Phobos. Then drake. And THEN, the
application/library he/she was interested in. Shortening this path is
IMHO REALLY important to see more D adoption. From my personal
experience, convincing developers and testers to fight through this
path is HARD.
* Cross-language builds (project with bindings), and builds with
external targets might be more difficult than need be, if the "2nd"
language is not supported by drake.
* Verbose build-script is IMHO a _really_ undesireable trait.
* How soon will I as a developer be able to "just build" a D-binding
to a C++-app (with needed C-glue-code) in Drake? Will a user of, say
Gentoo, be able to count on this working in his/her envrironment too?
* Non-compilation actions will have to be reimplemented; document
generation, test execution, install-tasks following OS-specific
install procedures (XDG-guidelines etc.), ...
IMHO, it sounds like a case of the NIH-syndrome, but I might be
missing something obvious?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>