What are the worst parts of D?

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 04:16:20PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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?
[...]

You're misrepresenting my position. *In spite of their current flaws*,
modern build systems like SCons and Tup already far exceed make in their
basic capabilities and reliability. Your argument reduces to declining
to replace a decrepit car that breaks down every other day with a new
one, just because the new car isn't a flawlessly perfect epitome of
engineering yet and still needs a little maintenance every half a year.


T

-- 
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares? -- Miquel van Smoorenburg