Prototype buildsystem "Drake"

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 7/15/11 7:58 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-07-15 00:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 7/14/11 3:09 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-14 08:56, Russel Winder wrote:
>>>> Nick,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 17:41 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>> 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.
>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>
>>>> You might want to take a quick look at SBT -- the standard Scala build
>>>> framework. It's advocates started it because Ant and Maven are XML hell
>>>> and are generally problematic, and Gradle is build on Java and Groovy,
>>>> and (as you might expect) Scala folk abhor all things dynamic (i.e.
>>>> Groovy) and insist on static type checking. I have some doubts about
>>>> the huge downloads they dump into each project hierarchy, but there is
>>>> no doubt that they have made excellent use of a statically type
>>>> language
>>>> to create a DSL for building Scala things.
>>>>
>>>> If D can be used to go down this sort of road, and if it can support
>>>> the
>>>> build and install facilities of SCons and Waf, then it could be a
>>>> winner.
>>>
>>> Scala have a lot of features making a DSL looking a lot better than one
>>> written in D.
>>
>> Does it have something akin to string mixins?
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I'm not very familiar with Scala but I found this:
> http://blog.darevay.com/2009/01/remedial-scala-interpreting-scala-from-scala/

Interesting. What are the features that do make a DSL better looking in 
Scala than in D?


Thanks,

Andrei