2015 H1 Vision

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 12:36:14 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 07:35:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
> wrote:
>> On 2015-02-02 06:57, ketmar wrote:
>>
>>> dub is good, but only in limited use cases. so it's almost no 
>>> sense in
>>> using dub if some use cases are not suitable for it: it's way 
>>> better to
>>> adapt build tool that one already using (or write his own) 
>>> instead of use
>>> TWO build tools for different projects.
>>
>> Dub should have been two tools, one for package management and 
>> one for building.
>
> Indeed. Most of the issues I hear about stem from it trying to 
> do both at the same time. It's a good package manager but 
> unfortunately a not so good build system. This makes me think, 
> once more, of writing a D build system that uses dub only for 
> package dependencies.
>
> Atila

I agree that this is desired course of actions (I actually 
sometimes use it this way, wrapping dub into makefiles :P) but 
that can be a bit tricky when you think about different package 
types - binaries, source libraries, shared libraries. The fact 
that dub does both fetching and building ensures that all 
dependencies are compiled in uniform compatible matter - any 
decoupling proposal would need to ensure this stays.