On 08/13/2013 12:48 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > But you're missing the bigger picture. What I envision is that this D > build tool will go beyond merely building DMD/druntime/Phobos. If it's > successful, it can become the *standard* D build tool for all D > programs. Having a standard D build tool will go a long way in making D > programs portable and easy to install, besides freeing us from a > dependency on make.
Can I suggest then that you write such a tool _first and foremost_ as a build system for arbitrary D programs (or preferably, arbitrary programs without reference to the language...)? Then, if it gets uptake, proves a success, etc., we can consider whether it makes sense for the core D stuff. The thing is that at the end of the day, make may have its problems but it is a well understood tool that is readily accessible to many developers and across platforms. It also means that the build system is not dependent on one or two D hackers, who might fall under a bus, get a new job, whatever. I really don't see the benefits of accepting the maintenance burden for a custom build system, with all the potential bottlenecks that introduces, compared to focusing on the things that really matter -- frontend, runtime, and standard library.
