[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 i
From: |
MJ Ray |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 initial release |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:26:35 +0100 |
On 2003-09-18 14:44:25 +0100 Robin Farine <address@hidden>
wrote:
Make doesn't allow one to create individual components that perform
well defined tasks while encapsulating the details.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Make is a component that
performs a well-defined task (building targets) while encapsulating
the details of its rules, isn't it? Make allows you to create other
components to do that and other tasks. It just exists and doesn't run
around using rm on scons if it finds it.
In a complex enough project, the makefiles become such a big pile of
rules and variables, one hardly knows where a variable will change,
where it will be expanded, if a name is free or already used
somewhere.
Remember, I did admit that it is possible to use make badly. People
see complicated Makefiles and feel that they should be making
complicated ones as part of some dick size war, even when a simpler
one would do. There's also the normal project problems of organic
growth and so on.
I suspect that it is possible to use SCons badly, especially given
that its build rules appear to be written in an imperative programming
language. There may be cases where SCons offers extra benefits, but
again, I cannot translate your message into obvious benefits. It may
be that SCons jargon is new to me. As far as I can tell, this:
When one need a builder not part of the standard set,
SCons makes it easy to create it, and independently from the builder
complexity, one can isolate its implementation so that it does not
have undesired effects on the rest of the system.
...just means that you can write new rules to build files and one
build rule does not have undesired effects on others. Good uses of
Make have the same properties, for the same reasons about interactions
as you gave. I am not sure how often a truly tortuous build process
is required and I'm not sure how writing Python is better at it.
Well, Cobol was already capable of handling records and fields and
performing computations but we always feel the need to try different
ways of doing one thing, so new languages/tools appeared since then.
Sometimes it works better, sometimes it doesn't. But after a
sufficient
amount of time has elapsed, we look backward and notice a "progress".
Well, Cobol was a backwards step from the pre-existing Lisp. I'm
still not sure whether we can look back over much progress in the
field of languages in general, or just better understanding of the
problems that Lisps have already solved and better tools for Lisps.
Maybe SCons offers some benefit over Make, but I have trouble seeing
it. I can see the problems it brings clearly, with every Tom Dick and
Harry defining their own procedures that have to be understood to work
out exactly what the build system is doing. (I'll refrain from the
normal "Python half-OO" diatribe.)
[...]
Not absolutely sure about cook but I seem to recall it relies on a
lot of
axioms and a few derived constructs, generally not a sign of powerful
simplicity.
I think the same can be said of the choice to put a whole programming
language interpreter inside the build tool, but there you go.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ address@hidden
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
- Re: autoconf (was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release), (continued)
- Re: autoconf (was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release), wave++, 2003/09/18
- Re: autoconf (was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release), Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/18
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: autoconf, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release, Miles Bader, 2003/09/17
- [going OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release, Doran Moppert, 2003/09/18
- Re: [going OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release, Miles Bader, 2003/09/18
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/18
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 initial release, MJ Ray, 2003/09/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 initial release, Robin Farine, 2003/09/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 initial release,
MJ Ray <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 initial release, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [going OT] build tool design, was: tlator-0.1 initial release, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/18
- Re: [going OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release, Robert Collins, 2003/09/18