On 8/27/2014 1:40 AM, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
D's an interesting option but it utterly fails the KISS test.
Because there is no std.make or std.build or std.scons or std.cmake
module to help with that.
All it would do is provide many tempting and creative ways to
accidentally obfuscate the package description file.
I agree partially with this, this is why I am not pushing for D. A
declarative language seems to be more appropriate in this case.
But we could imagine a declarative layer in/over D or a module directed
at it. You know, one language to rule them all (including declarative
languages, just as the functional ones...).
And then there's meta-mess of needing the right compiler version to
properly handle a given package. Blech.
C'mon. This is because D is still running after its own tail. I mean,
keeps evolving ans is unstable. I bet things will very much improve
sooner than you think and that D frontend will play a role.
All reasonable points, but it still seems like swatting a fly with a
bazooka. ;)
