On Monday, 27 October 2014 at 04:34:41 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
I'm against it. dub already tracks down libraries for you if
need
them, and dub already calls dmd for you. So all this seems like
to me is calling dmd on the command line would just essentially
be calling dub.
I much rather have a clean distinction between the toolkit and
the compiler.
It isn't a big leap from what we have now, but personally I think
it would help greatly with generating a larger user base by just
making things easier.
Anyways, automating things just for the sake of
automating them isn't a very good idea.
We are programmers, isn't that what we do? :P
I'm mainly offset by the
idea that my compiler is chatting away with some server in hopes
of finding a missing library or file. Downloading whatever I
need
and properly calling it is cleaner, safer, and more organized.
I can definitely understand how some people don't like the idea
of a compiler that connects to the internet but I don't feel that
at all. I have had internet all my life so I am very used to all
of my things being connected to the internet 100% of the time.
Also I think it could definitely be argued that an automated(well
more automated) solution would be cleaner and more organized.
The idea sounds like in the end it would primarily just help
hobbyist or someone looking to just quickly prototype something.
That is true. It would get people to play with D more, which is a
good thing. Bring more people to D.
So instead of fancying up/complicating dmd a better solution
would be to improve dub in someway, make a new tool, or if we
really have to do something to dmd then the solution that would
make the most people the happiest would be to allow plugins to
dmd or something, so if people want something like this then
they
can add it and then grumpy people like me won't be bothered by
it
;P
I am not sure how dub it self could be changed to do what I
proposed, but a new tool like what ketmar suggested or a plugin
system could definitely be an option.
