Is run.d going to be expand for runtime and the phobos library?

[Stefan Koch]

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 23:53:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 6/13/20 6:52 PM, Dennis wrote:
>> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 18:56:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> I didn't feel the need to add to provide detail because (a) 
>>> most regulars in this forum already knew what I was going to 
>>> say, and (b) nobody save for a few would share my opinion.
>>>
>>> But, I'll bite again, again to regret it.
>> 
>> I, for one, thought it was an interesting little write-up. 
>> Didn't expect it, my guess was that you were against the idea 
>> of using D to build something instead of a DSL, not the 
>> implementation.
>
> I should add - the fact that dmd needs to be installed in order 
> to build dmd is the proverbial insult added to the injury. Of 
> course that ruined the carefully constructed AUTO_BOOTSTRAP 
> option that allows building dmd on a fresh system.
>
> I should also add - unless I'm looking at the wrong version, 
> the old posix.mak has 654 lines. build.d has 1932 lines. But 
> build.d also supplants the Windows 32/64 makefiles (589/57 
> lines), so the size is not way bigger. But that begs the 
> question - given its liabilities, by what metric is build.d an 
> improvement?

You used to have to update diffrent makefiles when adding a new 
file the build

Have you used the windows makefiles?
They didn't work without modification.

I do agree that build.d takes to long to build because of all the 
phobos-ness in it.
But if I want to debug it I can, at least.

whereas with those makefiles which have to work with digital mars 
make.
it's way harder.