Re: Evolution

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Bob Sidebotham wrote:

> It's called evolution, folks. Cons was a big advance over make, and
> arguably has some advantages over jam, which was the source of its
> original inspiration. Steven and his team have taken it to the next
> level and are doing a superb job of crafting a beautiful tool. Cons
> will continue to exist for a while, but I, for one, would rather see
> Steven & his friends put their available energy into scons.
>
> I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the hard work that
> many people on this list have put into making cons a useful tool.
> Steven and Rajesh both deserve special recognition for all they've
> done.


Hear, hear!  I just got done with some heavy Conscripting today, and 
have to say once again that cons makes a lot of things trivial.

[I for one am glad to have it in perl, which I know pretty well now, but 
as long as the tool and scripts are written in SOME common scripting 
language rather than being designed from scratch, I will be happy.]

It does seem that Scons is not up to cons's maturity level yet, so I'm 
not about to jump over, but since it seems likely that many of us will 
do that some day, how should we approach making cons enhancements, like 
the modularization stuff people have been talking about recently?  And 
parallel builds, which scons already has?  Should we just wait and put 
the effort into scons, which might take a long time but have a bigger 
payoff, or should we keep patching and extending cons?  I've got a 
fairly large investment in cons and ancillary perl stuff for it, and 
will be happy to keep working on it for a while.

ps: how many folks on this list know python?  I don't, yet...

--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gary Oberbrunner                address@hidden
GenArts, Inc.                   Tel: 617-492-2888
8 Clinton Street                Fax: 617-492-2852
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA         http://web.genarts.com