On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 12:36:14 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 07:35:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-02-02 06:57, ketmar wrote:

dub is good, but only in limited use cases. so it's almost no sense in using dub if some use cases are not suitable for it: it's way better to adapt build tool that one already using (or write his own) instead of use
TWO build tools for different projects.

Dub should have been two tools, one for package management and one for building.

Indeed. Most of the issues I hear about stem from it trying to do both at the same time. It's a good package manager but unfortunately a not so good build system. This makes me think, once more, of writing a D build system that uses dub only for package dependencies.


I agree that this is desired course of actions (I actually sometimes use it this way, wrapping dub into makefiles :P) but that can be a bit tricky when you think about different package types - binaries, source libraries, shared libraries. The fact that dub does both fetching and building ensures that all dependencies are compiled in uniform compatible matter - any decoupling proposal would need to ensure this stays.

Reply via email to