I hate new DUB config format

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 19:36:18 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> As much as possible, yes. But non-trivial builds require a DAG, 
> ordering, and plain just telling the computer what to do.

Representing a DAG in a logic language is not a problem. The 
biggest problem is probably that most programmers (myself 
included) have an imperative mindset.

> for Ant. CMake script is bad enough, I can't imagine how much 
> I'd bang my head against the wall trying to contort XML into a 
> bad version of Lisp.

I don't know much about CMake, only given it a glance as 
make+Python is good enough for me. But I see your point. I don't 
know how expressive CMake is, but it does take quite a bit of 
adjustment to express oneself in a deductive (logic) language.

> The truth is, for most projects a `dub build` will do, and 
> that's fine. Declarative is the way to go then. But when you 
> have binaries reading files to auto-generate code that then 
> gets compiled in two different ways, one of which is copied... 
> you get the idea.

Hmm, yes, but if we (in fantasy land) start from scratch and have 
a generic distributed build system with a shared nosql database 
for the intermediate results and some kind of linda-like tuple 
space to back it up with meta data. Then a deductive language to 
update the tuple space. Then you have regular executable workers 
pull stuff out of the linda-space, and put the results back in. 
Unlike a file system, it would be transactional.