Re: Some questions for Cons

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Timothee Besset wrote:

> cons (at least the current 2.3.1 version from cvs) is feature complete
> (except for parallel builds), and doesn't have any known bugs (right?). I
> am using it on my own projects because in it's current state it fits me
> well. 


We are also using cons in a big way, developing a family of 
cross-platform products (see www.genarts.com) on Irix, Linux, Win32, and 
soon MacOS X.  We love it.

There has been some talk about generalizing some things, notably support 
for new compilers, but I don't know if anything is getting done on it. 
I wish I had some time to do it myself, but as cons is working quite 
well for us now it's hard for me to justify the time.


> However, it doesn't seem to get some developement effort anymore. This
> mailing list has been fairly quiet. If I were to start a new project now,
> I would probably have a look at scons [...]


I agree that scons is probably still too new for production use, but 
it's definitely worth a look -- I think the basic model of cons/scons is 
really ideal.  It can always use some cleanup around the edges, and 
scons will be a good push in that direction, but having tried a number 
of make alternatives before, I feel that cons's model is the best out there.

(And by the way, I know maybe not a lot of major work is getting done on 
cons, but I and a few others do submit patches every now and then.)

-- Gary Oberbrunner