Setting up dmd properly

[Jason Jeffory via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 08:42:19 UTC, Robert M. Münch 
wrote:
> On 2016-01-12 04:15:36 +0000, Mike Parker said:
>
>> You can avoid all of these headaches by using dynamic bindings 
>> like those at DerelictOrg [4] if they are available for the 
>> libraries you use. Then the compile-time dependency on the C 
>> library goes away and all you need is the DLL at runtime.
>
> I have seen countless problems because apps are using dynamic 
> linking and whole IT environements getting into DLL hell. IMO 
> one of the worst ideas these days.
>
> How simple would it be to just have one self-contained 
> executable?
>
> And all the Docker hype is doing / simulating this with a 
> sledgehammer.
>
> I prefer to link everything static, and it saved us and our 
> clients hours of headache. Drivespace is no limiting factor 
> anymore, but time and customer satisfaction is always.

It seems the whole state of affairs in programming is "Lets do 
the most minimal work to get X to work in environment Y. To hell 
with everything else!". The programmers tend to do the most 
minimal work to code stuff that they can get away with. This 
isn't 1984 but coding quality has no increased much since then. 
No programmer, in this day and age, should have to spend more 
than a few minutes getting anything to the point of actual 
programming. Programmers can code smarter, faster, and better, 
yet when it comes to the tooling, they tend to suck balls. Visual 
studio style is about the minimum one should except. I've 
virtually had no problems with it. MS did good job of modernizing 
the toolchain... Most people that code on linux think that it 
should be "hard" and gui's suck, that programming is suppose to 
be a hazing ritual. They setup their system to work for them, and 
it works... anyone with problems must be ignorant and not "pro 
programmers". It's kinda this elitist attitude. They spend more 
time solving 1%'er problems than creating tools that *just* work 
for 99% of the people. When problems occur it is never their 
fault but the fault of the ignorant cave man trying to become an 
godly programmer.

Just search "openGL dmd"(28k) and about 80% of the results are 
people having problems with getting openGL working with D. 
"openGL dmd error" has 1M results, thats nearly 30 times the 
results. Of course, these don't mean much, but does give the 
trend. That's just for openGL.

D has a long way to go to make it competitive... as long as the 
tooling sucks and there are problems with stupid issues such as 
coff vs omf, installation issues, ide issues, etc... it won't get 
off the ground. The D "core" seems to be mainly interested in 
fixing and enhancing very niche issues in D instead of working on 
making it a viable and usable candidate for the masses. They 
think by taking a Ferrari and doing all the pin stripes and 
detail work and add a specialized turbo charger is going to make 
it more appealing... yet they never put gas in it so that the 
customer can actually test drive it.

There is a benefit of having D work well... the benefit is that 
there is a larger user database = more man-hours to help D 
evolve. The reason why MS and VS is better is because a noob like 
myself can install it and hit the gas pedal and go. It looks 
good, it's fast, it's not the Ferrari... it's like a Mazda. But 
it runs! No frustration figuring out why the damn thing won't 
start. I want to drive! Not fucking around for days trying to 
figure out why the thing won't start. It's not my job to fill it 
up with gas, that's the dealers responsibility.

Anyways, sorry for the rant... not like things will change. D 
does fill a niche, and it shows ;/ Just wish I could drive the 
Ferrari! I know it's awesome! but the Mazda is more 
affordable(Man hours wise) and gets me to where I want to go 
without hassle.

(I should have said dragster instead of Ferrari... something that 
is super fast but my blow up and kill you... anyways, you get the 
point!)