[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CONS specs update?

From: Pierre THIERRY
Subject: Re: CONS specs update?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:01:49 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Scribit Rick Croote dies 29/11/2006 hora 12:05:
> There is a push to go to SCons, but the cost of the new language,
> Python, is prohibitive for us in the that all of our infrastructure is
> in Perl.

I can understand you don't want to switch. Well, I don't think it should
be that hard to provide a backward compatible module, so that unmodified
Construct files Just Work(c)(tm)(r).

It would be great if some users of Cons would be available to do some
tests, and build their source trees with the alternate tool.

> As for Perl OO, it is very easy, just keep it simple.

Well, it's a known defect of Perl that it's OO is just clumsy, and I
stumbled on it when I tried to learn it.

> I cannot say enough about how great Cons is, even if I hate going into
> the source, it performs very fast, beyond my expectations and very
> accurately. 

I hope to do as well.

> One big draw is the SCons multiple process building, and pcons
> attempted that, I do not know how well, but if I rewrite Cons it will
> have that for sure.


> Definitely a better need for plug-in modules for different types of
> tools, as the scanning requirements are all different.

Well, I want some sort of autotools-like as a module of the system. I'd
like to be able to express the build options as abstractly as possible,
and the system to translate it to compiler-specific options...

OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]