What are the worst parts of D?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/24/14, 3:47 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I've been thinking of that too! I have in mind a hybrid between tup and
> SCons, integrating the best ideas of both and discarding the bad parts.
>
> For example, SCons is notoriously bad at scalability: the need to scan
> huge directory structures of large projects when all you want is to
> rebuild a tiny subdirectory, is disappointing. This part should be
> replaced by Tup-style OS file change notifications.
>
> However, Tup requires arcane shell commands to get anything done --
> that's good if you're a Bash guru, but most people are not.

Well, what I see here is there's no really good build system there. So 
then how can we interpret your long plea for dropping make like a bad 
habit and using "a properly-done" build system with these amazing 
qualities? To quote:

> I wish I could inspire them as to how cool a
> properly-done build system can be. Automatic parallel building, for
> example. Fully-reproducible, incremental builds (never ever do `make
> clean` again). Automatic build + packaging in a single command.
> Incrementally *updating* packaging in a single command. Automatic
> dependency discovery. And lots more. A lot of this technology actually
> already exists. The problem is that still too many people think "make"
> whenever they hear "build system".  Make is but a poor, antiquated
> caricature of what modern build systems can do. Worse is that most
> people are resistant to replacing make because of inertia. (Not
> realizing that by not throwing out make, they're subjecting themselves
> to a lifetime of unending, unnecessary suffering.)

So should we take it that actually that system does not exist but you 
want to create it?


Andrei