www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - compile "automation", makefile, or whatever?

reply "K.K." <trampzy yahoo.com> writes:
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?
Sep 16 2014
next sibling parent reply "Cliff" <cliff.s.hudson gmail.com> writes:
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.
Sep 16 2014
parent reply "K.K." <trampzy yahoo.com> writes:
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
Sep 16 2014
parent reply "Cliff" <cliff.s.hudson gmail.com> writes:
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)?
Sep 16 2014
next sibling parent reply "K.K." <trampzy yahoo.com> writes:
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.
Sep 16 2014
parent reply "Cliff" <cliff.s.hudson gmail.com> writes:
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.
Sep 16 2014
parent reply "K.K." <trampzy yahoo.com> writes:
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
Sep 16 2014
parent reply "Cliff" <cliff.s.hudson gmail.com> writes:
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.)
Sep 16 2014
parent "K.K." <trampzy yahoo.com> writes:
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
Sep 16 2014
prev sibling parent reply "bachmeier" <no spam.net> writes:
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.
Sep 16 2014
parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
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")
Sep 17 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn" <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 07:00:05PM +0000, K.K. via Digitalmars-d-learn 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?


Try 'dub' (see: http://code.dlang.org/ ).


T

-- 
Turning your clock 15 minutes ahead won't cure lateness---you're just making
time go faster!
Sep 16 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Andrei Amatuni" <andrei.amatuni gmail.com> writes:
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
Sep 16 2014
parent "K.K." <trampzy yahoo.com> writes:
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.
Sep 16 2014