On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:17:55 -0400 Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:50:28 -0700 > Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8/13/13 10:39 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > > > > > > Well if you output a build file for a different tool that's > > > completely different. > > > > And more complicated. To quote myself (and fix a typo): The margins > > involved are small enough to make it difficult for the solution to > > not become worse than the problem. > > > > The sheer fact that this thread has been going on for so long > > without a slam-dunk solution emerging is quite telling. > > > > I think it's more telling of the fact that programmers tend not to > agree on things ;) (...Not entirely joking, either.) > But more seriously though, I think a fairly clear solution *has* emerged: A D-based tool. Everything else, including maintaining the status quo, has pretty much been ruled out by the majority for one reason or another - or at the very least have all has serious objections raised. But there haven't been any serious objections to the idea of a D-based tool - just some productive discussion of what form it should take. Besides, a solution doesn't need to be "a slam-dunk" to be worthwhile.
