On 19/03/2015 15:55, Trent Forkert wrote:
On Thursday, 19 March 2015 at 15:14:09 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 19/03/2015 14:45, Trent Forkert wrote:
It seems you are right that it *is* limited, but it shouldn't be. CMake
emits include/import paths into the project structure. I had thought it
emitted into .project, but evidently emits into .cproject. If DDT
supported a .dproject I could also emit, I could get it to work.
DDT does support a .dproject ... it's called dub.json ! ;)
I'm dead serious here though. Why would I invent my own file format to
describe source folders and include/imports paths when dub.json does
1. I don't consider an XML configuration to be "your own file format"
Err.., but it is. XML is just syntax, you still have the semantics of
what that data means to be defined. Just as learning XML doesn't mean
you know how to properly read/write HTML5! (Maybe there is a better term
than "file format", but regardless I think my comment was clear.
2. For the very reason that started this entire conversation. Not
everybody *wants* to use dub. Not everybody *can* use dub. So it doesn't
make sense for DDT to force dub.
At the time of this message of yours, you didn't offer any concrete,
*technical* reasons of why dub shouldn't be used. Saying one doesn't
*want* to use dub is not a valid reason at all. Saying you can't,
without saying why, is no valid reason either.
It would be silly to use anything else.
VisualD has done pretty well for itself.
And is that a full-featured integration, or does it have significant
limitations? You see, before DUB was, DDT did have it's own `.dproject`
of sorts ('.buildpath' for those who remember), and it's own basic
builder. But that integration was very basic and had severe limitations.
What I'm wondering is how good the VisualD on is then. Unfortunately I
can't easily check it out myself because if the point here is to check
C/C++ I'd probably have to install the commercial version of Visual
Studio to try it out.