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
On 13/02/2018 11:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 10:45 +0000, aberba via Digitalmars-d
I wish complaints about Dub would include exactly what was
impossible with it. There's no reason to throw dub away and
something new. If one can run cmake before build in dub,
lot is possible. Those edge cases can be ironed out.
I think there have been many actual complaints made in detail
There is always a reason to replace, because you can build on
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
No problem, and I guess you'll be happy to carry on using Dub
something new and better appears. In the case of Maven →
people still use Maven even though it is provably inferior to
simply because they cannot be bothered to change.
At point, dub will likely remain the default package
tool. The build functionality can be improved for those who
with such stuff often. Manpower is what remains.
Why should Dub remain the one true way? Just because it was
doesn't mean it is the best.
It wasn't the first and it was the best in over a 10 year
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.
Well backward compatibility with dub could always be a