Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?

[Doug Alcorn]

Dominique Dumont <address@hidden> writes:

> On our side, we spent a lot of time to move to Cons. The conscript
> and construct use quite a lot of perl instruction and a lot of
> tinkering with Cons variable.
>
> I'd hate to explain my boss that we should repeat this effort for Scons.

I've already asked this elsewhere, but I'll ask it here again.  What
is Cons not doing for you today?  Why should you redo all that work of
moving the conscripts/constructs over to SCons?  If your system is
building properly and efficiently with Cons, why change?

I think what I'm advocating is coming up with a good plan for retiring
Cons.  However, what I'm not saying is that everyone has to quit using
Cons.  There's nothing (that I know of) that forces you to switch to
SCons.  If there's some feature SCons has that Cons doesn't (like
parallel builds) that can save your project/company time/money, then
you can make a business decision about switching.

Stephen, I'd like you to pipe up here.  What was your original plan?
Did you have a migration path in mind?
-- 
 (__) Doug Alcorn - Unix/Linux/Web Developing
 oo / PGP 02B3 1E26 BCF2 9AAF 93F1  61D7 450C B264 3E63 D543
 |_/  mailto:address@hidden http://www.lathi.net