On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 02:46:46 UTC, lobo wrote:
On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:05:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote:
Should we try to implement yet another language for writing
building config?
No, I wasn't really talking about a build system for D, more
like a hypothetic generic distributed build system for all
languages. But I've read that Google uses a distributed build
system for their big C++ applications. So people are working
on such solutions already.
Maybe we should use any of existence language that may be
very good for it, like Red. It have very small foot prints so
it can be easy to embeded to build system.
I've never heard of Red, do you have a link?
Red started out as a Rebol 2 clone and last I checked (18
months ago) it was still is Rebol 2 compatible.
http://www.red-lang.org/
bye,
lobo
Red is not Rebol2 compatible - it's outright impossible to have a
single script file that'll run without errors on both Rebol2 and
Red. The reason is that Rebol2 requires the first thing in the
file to be a `REBOL` preamble, while Red requires it to be a
`Red` preamble(though it's generous enough to allow a shebang
before it). Since you can only have one preamble, and it can't be
both `REBOL` and `Red`, I refuse to call them compatible even if
every Rebol2 command can be copied to a Red script and run in
there!
At any rate, please don't use any Rebol dialect in DUB(or for
anything else, in that matter. Just - don't use it). Many
languages have awkward quirks, but Rebol seems to be a collection
of awkward quirks with a programming language somtimes
accidentally hiding in between, created by someone who thought
Perl is too readable and shell scripts have too strict type
systems.
