OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> But that's not the point. Neither make nor VS's equivalent is what
>>> this thread was about. At least not where I was involved. My point is
>>> that the design of c# *requiters* the maintenance (almost certainly
>>> by a c# specific IDE) of some kind of external metadata file that
>>> contains information that can't be derived from the source code its
>>> self, where as with D, no such metadata is *needed*. If you wanted,
>>> you could build a tool to take D source code and generate a makefile
>>> or a bash build script from it
>>>
>> If you wanted, you could create a tool to do the same with C# source
>> code, assuming there exists a directory containing all and only those
>> source files that should end up in the resulting assembly.
> 
> I'm /not/ willing to assume that (because all to often it's not true) 
> and you also need the list of other assemblies that should be included.
> 
> 
C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D 
source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external libs. 
you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's search 
path or provide the full path otherwise.
Same thing with assemblies.

you have to provide that meta-data (lib names) anyway both in C# and D. 
the only difference is that C# (correctly) recognizes that this is the 
better default.