tooling quality and some random rant

[gölgeliyele]

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Am 13.02.2011 20:01, schrieb gölgeliyele:
>> I don't think 
>> supporting multiple compilation models is a good thing. 
>> 
> 
> I think incremental compilation is a very useful feature for large projects so
> it should be available.
> Also the possibility to link in .o files that were generated from C code with 
D
> programs is a must - so only supporting the model of feeding all .d files to 
dmd
> is not an option.
> 
> But not supporting the model of feeding all .d files to dmd is very useful and
> should be possible.
> 
> So *I* /do/ think that supporting multiple compilation models is a good 
thing :-)
> 

Ok, I might have misspoken there. I am not against incremental compilation. What 
the heck, the lack of it is the reason I started the thread. However, I would 
like to see a coherent compilation model. Feeding all .d files to the compiler 
does not necessarily mean that it needs to be a from-scratch compilation. 

Isn't the need for tools like xfBuild an indication that something is wrong 
here. If you can point me to a write up that describes how to setup an 
incremental compilation for a large project, without using advanced tools like 
xfBuild, that would be very helpful.