Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?

[Brad Garcia]

It didn't "need" to be re-written in python.  But most people here
would agree that cons was/is in need of a pretty major overhaul.

The Software Carpentry competition gave Steve the little "kick" needed
to convince him to start re-writing it.  But, one of the requirements
of the competition was that all tools be written using or utilizing
python.  To a programmer like Steve, that's just an excuse to learn
yet another cool programming language!

Nobody else has gotten the urge to re-write cons using its native
perl.  People like me are quite happy to simply continue using cons
(stable release) in its current form.  Perhaps that means cons
development will stagnate.  Perhaps that means scons will become the
successor to cons.  Such is the way of things.

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Doug Alcorn wrote:

> I'll also say I don't really understand why Cons had to be re-written
> in Python.  I guess it's about the money.  Didn't the SCons project
> get money to re-write it in Python to be part of the Software
> Carpentry project?  Was that the only reason?  Were there technical
> reasons for abandoning the Perl code base?  I don't really know
> Python.  I've only done a smidgen of work in it.  However, I don't see
> anything that Python does that Perl doesn't do just as easily.  True,
> the syntax is more "homogeneous"; however, TMTOWTDI is one of the
> things I like most about Perl.  Anyway, this seems like a perfect
> example of Joel Spolsky's Rule Number One[1].

Brad Garcia