On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 15:33:16 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 11:27:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 07:35:07 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
I was thinking about simple declarative syntax plus fallback
to
imperative style for custom needs.
That's exactly what
On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 11:27:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 07:35:07 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
I was thinking about simple declarative syntax plus fallback to
imperative style for custom needs.
That's exactly what I thought I'd accomplished ;)
I will try to give a
On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 07:35:07 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 14:20:23 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:54:53 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:51:03 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
[...]
But have to add that I want event simpler (no
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 14:20:23 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:54:53 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:51:03 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
2. Not "slim" syntax
I have similar view on the syntax as Dicebot:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 17:57:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Even 90% is not enough because it leads to forking
functionality for those 10%, greatly diminishing
standartization. And build systems are highly opinionated. Some
people praise imperative systems like SCons - I find it very
hard to
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 18:36:48 UTC, Mark Isaacson wrote:
From experience, it turns out that having a restricted language
to specify your builds/dependencies is a very good thing.
Yes, and it's called a DSL.
You really don't really want a turning complete language for
this; it just
On 03/17/2016 06:42 PM, Piotrek wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 15:49:07 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> 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
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 05:25:32AM +, Piotrek via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 18:36:48 UTC, Mark Isaacson wrote:
> >From experience, it turns out that having a restricted language to
> >specify your builds/dependencies is a very good thing. You really
> >don't really
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 16:36:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
NB: this is orthogonal to development of dub. Most important
functionality of dub is dependency management, acting as a
build tool is secondary to that (and can be adjusted to support
other build systems instead).
Idea itself is
On 03/19/2016 11:36 AM, Piotrek wrote:
> On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 15:31:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> Hmm, the build module could be compiled once. It sources are supposed
>>> to stay unchanged, right?
>>
>> Even "once" will be too much for majority of D users (those who are
>> not also Gentoo
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 15:51:38 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
Hi,
What do you think about concentrating D build system around a
hypothetical "std.build" module instead of investing in dub or
other custom tools?
Also instead of custom build file format like JSON/SDL/XML/YAML
we could simply
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:54:53 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:51:03 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
2. Not "slim" syntax
I have similar view on the syntax as Dicebot:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/vqdhbplqezgdmgumf...@forum.dlang.org
But have to add that I want event simpler
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:51:03 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 09:51:07 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Could you explain what is overcomplicated and inconvenient?
I'd love some feedback and to be able to fix it.
This is rather broad topic and most of the points are related
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Piotrek via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 18:36:48 UTC, Mark Isaacson wrote:
>
>> From experience, it turns out that having a restricted language to
>> specify your builds/dependencies is a very good thing.
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
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 15:49:07 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
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
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 09:51:03 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
2. Not "slim" syntax
I have similar view on the syntax as Dicebot:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/vqdhbplqezgdmgumf...@forum.dlang.org
But have to add that I want event simpler (no templates etc.)
declarations and primitives like e.g.
On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 09:51:07 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Could you explain what is overcomplicated and inconvenient? I'd
love some feedback and to be able to fix it.
This is rather broad topic and most of the points are related to
different view on design goal for build tool. Let me try
On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 15:31:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Hmm, the build module could be compiled once. It sources are
supposed to stay unchanged, right?
Even "once" will be too much for majority of D users (those who
are not also Gentoo users at least :D). Remember - we are not
speaking
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 06:13:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I think a good balance can be drawn between providing enough
primitives that cover almost all conceivable use cases in a
build tool, and at the same time provide an "escape hatch" into
a full-fledged programming language for those
On 03/16/2016 05:51 PM, Piotrek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do you think about concentrating D build system around a
> hypothetical "std.build" module instead of investing in dub or other
> custom tools?
>
> Also instead of custom build file format like JSON/SDL/XML/YAML we could
> simply use a d
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 18:36:48 UTC, Mark Isaacson wrote:
From experience, it turns out that having a restricted language
to specify your builds/dependencies is a very good thing. You
really don't really want a turning complete language for this;
it just makes it harder to reason
From experience, it turns out that having a restricted language
to specify your builds/dependencies is a very good thing. You
really don't really want a turning complete language for this; it
just makes it harder to reason about.
On 17/03/16 07:13, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Personally, I also find makefiles have a tendency to become unmaintable
messes. I have yet to find one non-trivial project whose makefiles
*aren't* unmaintainable messes. The dmd toolchain tries to, but fails
(esp. with the nasty
Hi,
What do you think about concentrating D build system around a
hypothetical "std.build" module instead of investing in dub or
other custom tools?
Also instead of custom build file format like JSON/SDL/XML/YAML
we could simply use a d source file, e.g "build.d".
All specification would
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 05:15:25 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 16:36:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
NB: this is orthogonal to development of dub. Most important
functionality of dub is dependency management, acting as a
build tool is secondary to that (and can be adjusted to
26 matches
Mail list logo
