Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 21:54:10 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
In my case, I'm calling libraries on my local machine that I
wrote and
I didn't use dub, but according to docs you can write
dependencies: {
mylib2: { path: ../mylib2 }
},
or something like that
linking to existing C libraries.
systemDependencies string A textual description of the required
system dependencies (external C libraries) required by the
package. This will be visible on the registry and will be
displayed in case of linker errors.
libs string[] A list of external library names - depending on
the compiler, these will be converted to the proper linker flag
(e.g. ssl might get translated to -L-lssl)
compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
Hey I have a quick question: Does D have it's own version of makefiles or anything (preferably simpler)? So instead of typing in PowerShell dmd file1.d file2.d lib\foo.lib -Isrc\ . I could just type most of that into a file and then just type dmd file.X I've seen some people make really complex .d files that have a lot of interchangeability but at the moment I wouldn't really need something of that scale. Also, I'm not using DUB; I'd prefer to just use the command line. ..Can pragma's help with this, aside from linking just the libs?
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 19:00:05 UTC, K.K. wrote: Hey I have a quick question: Does D have it's own version of makefiles or anything (preferably simpler)? So instead of typing in PowerShell dmd file1.d file2.d lib\foo.lib -Isrc\ . I could just type most of that into a file and then just type dmd file.X I've seen some people make really complex .d files that have a lot of interchangeability but at the moment I wouldn't really need something of that scale. Also, I'm not using DUB; I'd prefer to just use the command line. ..Can pragma's help with this, aside from linking just the libs? I want to say somewhere on the forums are some descriptions of using CMake for this. Might try searching for that.
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 19:26:29 UTC, Cliff wrote: I want to say somewhere on the forums are some descriptions of using CMake for this. Might try searching for that. Yeah I just looked up the CMake thing. It definitely seems worth playing with, though I'm not really sure how extensive it's D support currently is :S
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:29:12 UTC, K.K. wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 19:26:29 UTC, Cliff wrote: I want to say somewhere on the forums are some descriptions of using CMake for this. Might try searching for that. Yeah I just looked up the CMake thing. It definitely seems worth playing with, though I'm not really sure how extensive it's D support currently is :S Out of curiosity, why are you not using dub (on the command-line)?
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:31:33 UTC, Cliff wrote: Out of curiosity, why are you not using dub (on the command-line)? I'm not against using it or anything, but I've found that it didn't help me significantly nor did I have the patience to figure out it's whole set of issues, D by itself is already enough trouble xD Plus with my spastic work style, it kinda slowed me down. However, it is something I may consider when I have an actually organized project with a final goal. A lot of what I'm doing right now is just experiments. Though, if Cmake + D does the trick then I might not use DUB in the end. Hard to say atm.
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:45:29 UTC, K.K. wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:31:33 UTC, Cliff wrote: Out of curiosity, why are you not using dub (on the command-line)? I'm not against using it or anything, but I've found that it didn't help me significantly nor did I have the patience to figure out it's whole set of issues, D by itself is already enough trouble xD Plus with my spastic work style, it kinda slowed me down. However, it is something I may consider when I have an actually organized project with a final goal. A lot of what I'm doing right now is just experiments. Though, if Cmake + D does the trick then I might not use DUB in the end. Hard to say atm. Would you be willing to provide some more detail on what about it you didn't like (errors, missing features, etc.)? I ask because build systems are a particular interest of mine and I have projects in this area which can always use more user data.
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 19:00:05 UTC, K.K. wrote: Hey I have a quick question: Does D have it's own version of makefiles or anything (preferably simpler)? So instead of typing in PowerShell dmd file1.d file2.d lib\foo.lib -Isrc\ . I could just type most of that into a file and then just type dmd file.X I've seen some people make really complex .d files that have a lot of interchangeability but at the moment I wouldn't really need something of that scale. Also, I'm not using DUB; I'd prefer to just use the command line. ..Can pragma's help with this, aside from linking just the libs? Have you tried - http://dlang.org/rdmd.html
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:53:08 UTC, Cliff wrote: Would you be willing to provide some more detail on what about it you didn't like (errors, missing features, etc.)? I ask because build systems are a particular interest of mine and I have projects in this area which can always use more user data. I'll try, but I haven't used it at all since maybe.. April? One of the main things that annoyed me about it was how sensitive it could be. The best comparison I can give is that it reminded me ALOT of Haxe. Both are very flimsy, and very poorly documented. (Nothing beats a good manual as far as I'm concerned!) The other thing, as I briefly mentioned, was it really didn't speed anything up, unless maybe you were working on a larger project. Obviously I'm not a master of any sort, but the main point I'd take from this is it wasn't inviting. Hope that helps a bit :3
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:57:20 UTC, Andrei Amatuni wrote: Have you tried - http://dlang.org/rdmd.html only a tiny bit... I've haven't quite figured rdmd yet :\ I'm actually trying it out right now.
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 21:05:18 UTC, K.K. wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:53:08 UTC, Cliff wrote: Would you be willing to provide some more detail on what about it you didn't like (errors, missing features, etc.)? I ask because build systems are a particular interest of mine and I have projects in this area which can always use more user data. I'll try, but I haven't used it at all since maybe.. April? One of the main things that annoyed me about it was how sensitive it could be. The best comparison I can give is that it reminded me ALOT of Haxe. Both are very flimsy, and very poorly documented. (Nothing beats a good manual as far as I'm concerned!) The other thing, as I briefly mentioned, was it really didn't speed anything up, unless maybe you were working on a larger project. Obviously I'm not a master of any sort, but the main point I'd take from this is it wasn't inviting. Hope that helps a bit :3 Yep, that's useful information to me. Over the years I have found that build systems *generally* tend to be uninviting. My suspicion is that comes down to a few reasons: 1. Builds end up being a LOT more complicated that you would expect as soon as you step out of a single project with a few source files and default options 2. Build tooling is typically built and maintained by people who end up being relatively specialist - either they are part of the small cabal of people who know the tooling intimately, or they have been forced into it and know just enough to get by for their organization. 3. Most build tooling is designed to solve a particular subset of actual build-related problems, with much less though given to how it fits holistically into the entire developer workflow. 4. Build tooling is almost never treated like an actual product - documentation is written for wizards, not lay-people. As a result, the casual user is a bit SOL. (NOTE: This is not a rant specifically aimed at DUB, but my general observation on the state of build tooling.)
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 21:17:19 UTC, Cliff wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 21:05:18 UTC, K.K. wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:53:08 UTC, Cliff wrote: Would you be willing to provide some more detail on what about it you didn't like (errors, missing features, etc.)? I ask because build systems are a particular interest of mine and I have projects in this area which can always use more user data. I'll try, but I haven't used it at all since maybe.. April? One of the main things that annoyed me about it was how sensitive it could be. The best comparison I can give is that it reminded me ALOT of Haxe. Both are very flimsy, and very poorly documented. (Nothing beats a good manual as far as I'm concerned!) The other thing, as I briefly mentioned, was it really didn't speed anything up, unless maybe you were working on a larger project. Obviously I'm not a master of any sort, but the main point I'd take from this is it wasn't inviting. Hope that helps a bit :3 Yep, that's useful information to me. Over the years I have found that build systems *generally* tend to be uninviting. My suspicion is that comes down to a few reasons: 1. Builds end up being a LOT more complicated that you would expect as soon as you step out of a single project with a few source files and default options 2. Build tooling is typically built and maintained by people who end up being relatively specialist - either they are part of the small cabal of people who know the tooling intimately, or they have been forced into it and know just enough to get by for their organization. 3. Most build tooling is designed to solve a particular subset of actual build-related problems, with much less though given to how it fits holistically into the entire developer workflow. 4. Build tooling is almost never treated like an actual product - documentation is written for wizards, not lay-people. As a result, the casual user is a bit SOL. (NOTE: This is not a rant specifically aimed at DUB, but my general observation on the state of build tooling.) Yeah I absolutely agree with you on that! Something I see alot in place of actual documentation is the developer repeatedly saying email me (aka google searching peoples name's and usernames until you find it), but I'm generally reluctant to do so because it means I'm gonna have to ask them very straight forward streamlined questions (usually meaning I'd have to take my problem out of the context I'm having trouble with) and then pray that they'll answer more than one email, and also hope they'll answer within at least a few days. Some people are really good an answer within a few hours, other times you won't get a reply at all. Also when reading your post i remembered something else about DUB.. I don't remember precisely what I was doing, but I had a quick experiment that was just supposed a window opened and displayed a small image. Using DMD it worked fine, but for some reason when using DUB, the picture wouldn't load at all. It was quite the mystery. So you can probably see why I've happily made text files, folders, and powershell my go to tools :P
Re: compile automation, makefile, or whatever?
On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:31:33 UTC, Cliff wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 20:29:12 UTC, K.K. wrote: On Tuesday, 16 September 2014 at 19:26:29 UTC, Cliff wrote: I want to say somewhere on the forums are some descriptions of using CMake for this. Might try searching for that. Yeah I just looked up the CMake thing. It definitely seems worth playing with, though I'm not really sure how extensive it's D support currently is :S Out of curiosity, why are you not using dub (on the command-line)? Is dub intended to be a replacement for make? I've never used it beyond just playing around with it here and there, but my impression was that it is wonderful if you're doing a pure D project and have a dependency on some of the libraries in their repository. In my case, I'm calling libraries on my local machine that I wrote and linking to existing C libraries. I couldn't figure out how to do that in dub, but given that the alternative was to type a few lines into a Makefile, I didn't see the point.
