On 03/17/2016 07:15 AM, Piotrek wrote: > As for dub I don't think it is unrelated. Why std.build couldn't be > dependency manager?
For same reason you don't want to distribute any other non-trivial tools as sources :) Compilation takes time and has non-trivial dependencies (i.e. networking libraries, git providers etc.), you simply can't put that stuff as a stdlib module/package and expect developers to compile it each time. Even mature build tool would be too complicated to fit into std.build concept - however there is a real benefit in supporting more simple build system that doesn't try to be performant and robust, as that can be used to bootstrap building compiler distribution itself. > What about: > std.build = part of reggae + part of dub Tight coupling of dependency management and build tool in one entity is just too inflexible. This is single biggest issue I have with dub in its current form.
