Re: Request for comments: CONS specification
"F. Schoenahl" <[email protected]> Mon, 31 May 2004 18:46:58 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.cons.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20040531184658.65ce88ab@dmnu_mn34.hcuge.ch> |
On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:39:10 +0200 Pierre THIERRY <[email protected]> wrote: > > Developing a new extensible version of cons is a good idea. > I agree. ;-) Not me! :) Hi everybody I am not a contributor to any of the (s)cons projects, and had no time to help on other buildsystems, so you might don't care about my opinion - take this as a - user - opinion. I have been playing around with cons, scons and aap to make my projects easier to develop. I see that scons and aap, and now cons, converge to the same point. I would say if you want to play around and do a new cons for your pleasure, I understand, but I really have the feeling you reinvent the wheel, and your analysis misses one fundamental point : what is missing in other implementations that you will bring with a new cons? I have read these pages http://www.a-a-p.org/tools_script.html http://www.a-a-p.org/tools_build.html etc... Thus I don't know what your aims are, but I think most of the job is done already. As user, I will first see that - perl is not as easy to have running on windows as python, - perl is not easy to learn compared to python : the scripting of a build system serves programmer aims only, and python is more familiar to programmers than perl - scons and aap are already modular - how will you improve the concepts? So, I would recommend to focus on some brand new direction for a new cons, else it may abort very soon! Good luck, fred _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/