On 2/9/15 12:43 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, 2015-02-08 at 08:57 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
* One more language for the maintainers to know and use.
On the other hand by replacing Make you lose two languages, so total one
less language to know.
That's not elastic. By eliminating make/sh we don't automatically
"forget" them making place for others :o).
* One more dependency. Although scripting languages are ubiquitous
enough, I can tell from direct experience that versioning and dependent
packages can be quite a hassle.
This applies to the entire D infrastructure (and also the C, C++, Make,
Bash,..), versioning in all systems is currently a serious problem,
possibly insoluble, so this would not be a new thing at all.
Fewer is better. "You have a pet in the house already, so you know what
it takes to keep one. Take mine too..."?
* Escaping into a high-level language seems as much "cheating" as
escaping into a low-level language. If C or C++ would be needed instead
of D for a task, it is worthwhile exploring how to make D a better
replacement for them . This has been historically a good and important
goal to pursue. Similarly I'd rather explore what it takes to expand D
into high-level territory instead of escaping into a high-level language.
I definitely agree this is a good thing, but I have yet to see a good
build system with serious traction that is purely statically typed and
compiled. Maybe D could be different. Perhaps another GSoC 2015 project
in here?
That would be interesting.
Andrei
