On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 11:36:50 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 11:14:25 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 13/02/2018 11:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 10:45 +0000, aberba via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
I wish complaints about Dub would include exactly what was
impossible with it. There's no reason to throw dub away and
start
something new. If one can run cmake before build in dub,
then a
lot is possible. Those edge cases can be ironed out.
I think there have been many actual complaints made in detail
in this
thread.
There is always a reason to replace, because you can build on
what has
gone before and do better. CMake is part of the problem.
Dub fulfills all my use cases so I don't complain. Those here
with not much issue with dub will also not complain. And that
does not make it a minority opinion without stats to prove
dub
usage.
No problem, and I guess you'll be happy to carry on using Dub
after
something new and better appears. In the case of Maven →
Gradle, many
people still use Maven even though it is provably inferior to
Gradle
simply because they cannot be bothered to change.
At point, dub will likely remain the default package
management
tool. The build functionality can be improved for those who
deal
with such stuff often. Manpower is what remains.
[…]
Why should Dub remain the one true way? Just because it was
the first
doesn't mean it is the best.
It wasn't the first and it was the best in over a 10 year
period.
While I am really suffer from some painful behavior of dub, in
my opinion it is a great tool and it would damage the D
ecosystem to go away from dub. Companies already starting
investing into this tool. In my case, without dub it would not
be possible at all to use D at work.
The involved developers doing a great job.
Kind regards
André
Well backward compatibility with dub could always be a
possibility.
