That just makes sense - define a build DSL inside your own language. For some reasons, though, the de facto build DSL used by Scala suffers by all the issues mentioned by Li Haoyi in his blog post
I haven't seen any real effort to try to standardize on APIs, so you could write your "plugins" in your language of choice and the "glue" code would be this language-independent build tool.
I'd say I've mostly given up on this. I have a Makefile for every project, which in turn of course uses the language-specific build tool, but for example when I wanted to use webpack (migrating from a mess of gulp+bower+npm from angular.js to just webpack for angular) I wrote a simple PoC Makefile with hacky sed-/awk-/lines and a lot of cp and cat in just a few hours (massive build script).
Then the result was working as intended and I could refactor all the stuff where there's a nice webpack plugin and get rid of my Makefile hacks. Now in the end the Makefile just provides a common starting point that has "executable docs" for every language specific tool. "make bootstrap/test/run/build", no matter what language the project is in - for the low cost of having to update the Makefile when you change something major or some arguments. Not advocating this for all orgs (please use what makes YOUR team happy) but I've heard nothing but positive things about this from my team.
https://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-11/#abstracts has a presentation. It focuses on compiling with clang, but the system is more flexible. Slides at https://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-11/Slides/Dunbar-NewArchitectur..., matching video is at https://youtu.be/b_T-eCToX1I.
That's a problem. A big one.
Maybe you could explain for the feeble-minded such as myself:
- how would you represent a simple key=value in dhall?
- how yould you represent a dictionary in dhall (multiple key=value entries)?
- how would you represent an array in dhall?
- maybe a more complex structure, say, translate (by hand) a package.json file to dhall?
(Nevermind, I found the tutorial. But the readme page is IMO a big fail if dhall wants wide adoption. If it doesn't then, ignore my criticism :) )
I'd rather we aimed to make build scripts that are turing complete and as short and simple as possible rather than non-turing complete.
* Retrying something if it fails.
* A hundred other different scenarios which crop up occasionally, require about 4 lines of turing complete code, and are an absolute bitch to handle in a language deliberately designed not to make it possible.
An easy way to see that is that “Turing complete” implies “can be used to simulate any Turing machine”, which in turn implies “suffers from the halting problem”. Consequently, any language that doesn’t suffer from the halting problem cannot be Turing complete.
So, for example, any language that doesn’t allow backwards jumps, or only uses loops with numbers of iterations that are provably finite at compile time isn’t Turing complete.
There's a lot of times and places where removing turing completeness makes complete sense - configuration, user stories, translation files and simple DSLs that operate in a very restricted problem space, etc. Building software isn't a restricted problem space.
Some argue Dtrace’s scripting language and PDF (and, IIRC, various packet filter languages) are popular because they aren’t Turing complete.
That's impossible anyway because one of the plugins or the core build code may never halt.
Abandoning turing completeness shouldn't be about that anyway. It should be done because it's demonstrably not needed to solve a problem.