Re: Cons not working as advertized and other remarks

[Brad Garcia]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Nadim Khemir wrote:

> A last word about Scons. (please let's keep the perl-python dumb war out of
> this list)

You're pretty bossy for a newcomer. ;^)

> What's the use to rewrite a properly working program to python?
> Is it to be happy with it or did you add any functionalities? wouldn't it
> have better to add functionality to cons instead?

There was a competition a while ago to write different pieces of a
complete software construction environment.  One of the requirements
was that all the pieces needed to be written using Python.

    http://sc-archive.codesourcery.com/

Steven decided that cons was the obvious choice for a next-generation
build tool.  But to qualify, it needed to be written in Python.

It won the build-tool category, by the way.

Also, the deficiencies of cons have been discussed numerous times on this
list.  Although I haven't taken a look at SCons yet, it sounds like the
developers have taken this opportunity to address some of the
architectural shortcomings of cons.

And to answer your implied question - no, the project was not a result of
someone hating perl and loving python.  :^)

Brad Garcia