Idea: std.build instead of dub and make-like tools

[Piotrek via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 15:49:07 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On 03/17/2016 07:15 AM, Piotrek wrote:
>> As for dub I don't think it is unrelated. Why std.build 
>> couldn't be dependency manager?
>
> For same reason you don't want to distribute any other 
> non-trivial tools as sources :) Compilation takes time and has 
> non-trivial dependencies (i.e. networking libraries, git 
> providers etc.), you simply can't put that stuff as a stdlib 
> module/package and expect developers to compile it each time.

Hmm, the build module could be compiled once. It sources are 
supposed to stay unchanged, right?

> Tight coupling of dependency management and build tool in one 
> entity is just too inflexible. This is single biggest issue I 
> have with dub in its current form.

Can you explain it by example (I don't mean dub problems, which I 
agree exist, but the inflexibility in general)?
I can't see a conflict between the two functionalities.

Piotrek