Re: Request for comments: CONS specification

[Steven Knight]

Hi Fred--

I wanted to chime in with a few comments and questions here...

> > I think it's the main point why I would work on Cons instead of going
> > into another valuable existing project.
> 
> I undestand - you seem also very motivated to develop new cons  -
> If I can suggest some features to think about :
>
> "scons" requires reading local information and file changes and is
> therefore long to trigger, "make" reacts very quick a contrario. AAP
> is in the middle. That's a good point, when developping small-middle
> scale project, It is always good to have a build system that doesn't
> take too much time.

The next release of SCons looks like it will have some changes that
will reduce the amount of time it takes to get started, at least for
many configurations.

> "SCons" has a make-like way to compile files, "aap" uses additional
> directories aap-build-directories, where objects are stored. This
> is a good idea because it avoids complex tunings to store objects at
> specific places.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "make-like way to compile files?"
SCons does support a BuildDir() feature and build_dir argument to
the SConscript() call that allow for placing target files in separate
directories.  Is that what you meant?  (I want to make sure I'm not
overlooking some functionality that we still need to add.)

> "aap" has a very promising "configure" feature, which is very
> experimental but imho, it is a very good idea to have configuration
> skills for a build system, same language for the whole stuff +1

A-A-P and SCons collaborated on the underlying code for the autoconf-like
functionality.  SCons supports this sort of configuration through its
"SConf" subsystem, but unfortunately it's only documented in the man page,
not in the User's Guide yet.

> I find "aap" and "scons" are not clear about the "install" features. I
> think it should be very easy to include a ginstall like feature.
> The point is that all developper attempt to do one very big modular
> software : do it modular ok, but maybe good to have a small suite
> of three programs : e.g. ncons ninst nconf to make the build system
> complete.

I agree, this would be a good enhancement for both tools.

> Imho, skip back compatibility with the current cons, this will make
> things far easier.

Far easier to implement, but more work for people wanting to migrate to
the new Cons, yes?  That may be the right choice, but the group working
on this should make a conscious decision about what the priorities of the
project will be: implementing quickly, or making it as easy as possible
for previous Cons users to migrate.  Both have their pros and cons,
but it will save headaches if everyone working on the project has the
same clear understanding of the priorities from the beginning.

> Finally the installation of aap in a windows environment is very simple,
> "aap install"  configures everything and aap works. Scons requires
> some additional tunings, but is also quite easy to make run.
> 
> Just some suggestions! hope this helps, 
> 
> I wish you good luck, and am somehow happy to see that cons may have
> a nice future - it was one of the most interesting development tools
> I discovered some monthes ago!

I completely agree.  It's a real shame that Cons has been languishing
for this long.

        --SK