Errors compiling DSSS

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-11-29 15:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Since you think (as opposed to believe), then there are reasons. What
> are those reasons, and what steps can we take to obviate them from the D
> side?

Some features Ruby has that makes it less verbose to use:

* No semicolons
* Calling a method without parentheses
* Code can be executed basically every where. Global scope, module scope 
, class scope, method scope and function scope
* Blocks
* Easy to integrate into an application
* Relaxed syntax for associative array literals
* Dynamic typing can probably help as well

Actually, I'm a bit concerned about how I would do the actual 
integration if the build script was written in D. In Ruby it's easy, 
just do something like (written in D using libruby) :

# Build script in Ruby

target :foo do
end

// Handling the build script in D

string content = read(buildScript);
BuildScriptContext context = new BuildScriptContext;
context.instance_eval(content);

// access what's needed from "context"
string target = context.target;

writeln(target); // prints "foo"

> Then why not work on it? A tool using D is much more likely to be
> accepted by the community than one using Ruby, and the latter will
> probably never be part of the official distro.

That's not fair. I'm doing the best I can. I'm working on several D 
relate projects (including a build tool) and I don't have much time to 
work at D at all. I would really like to be able to work on these 
projects full time. But I don't know how to make money on that.

> I plan to change your
> Ruby installer creation scripts into shell scripts as soon as I'll have
> a minute.

How is that any better? Yeah I do know that you prefer shell scripts 
over Ruby. But you're arguing that I should use D instead of Ruby and 
then you're going to use shell script.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg