Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?

The developement effort has shifted to scons, which is pretty much the
same as cons, but based on Python. http://scons.sourceforge.net

Developement on cons is stopped it seems, which is less and less a problem
as scons picks up in functionality and reliability. What I've been
complaining about is not the lack of developement, but the lack of
maintenance lately. If I was to start a new build system, I would look at
scons anyway.

I briefly looked at jam, which is extremely similar to cons/scons. But I
think cons/scons have a big advantage by making the Construct file in perl
(or Python for scons), which is extremely powerful approach and avoids
jam's solution of creating it's own language. You could say that GNU Make
uses it's own language too .. and that's why it sucks :)

TTimo

On Thu, 16 May 2002 14:34:30 +0300
Asko Kauppi <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> Being new to the cons world (just starting to evaluate it), this makes me
> wonder...  
> 
> What is the real problem: technical instability, lack of developers or both?
> Knowing "enough" about make I really _don't_ want to know any more! 'Cons'
> seems like the perfect "life-saver" for me. Or well, seemed.
> 
> So far, I've compared 'make', 'jam' and 'cons' on paper and am _just_now_
> starting to do that in action. Please inform me if 'cons' is a "dead end"
> since I wouldn't like to waste my time.
> 
> On paper, it seems like the best of the bunch. Especially the
> not-only-timestamp philosophy appeals to me greatly.
> 
> Thanks for the help,
> - Asko
> 
> --
> Asko Kauppi
> Flextronics Design Finland
> Box 23, 39201 Kyröskoski, Finland
> +358 205 345 251 phone
> +358 205 345 332 fax
> +358 40 518 6634 mobile
> www.flextronics.com 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Timothee Besset [SMTP:[email protected]]
> > Sent:	Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:40 AM
> > To:	[email protected]
> > Subject:	Re: cons 2.3.1 release?
> > 
> > I know, I periodically post here trying to get things moving. The CVS
> > version works fine, except for the build package problem I reported, and
> > the lack of a working parallel cons. A final release of 2.3.1 as the
> > stable version, and a clear statement that cons developement is abandonned
> > would be a good thing.
> > 
> > Last time I checked, scons was far behind in terms of features. I'm using
> > cons in a production environement, and I need some of it's advanced
> > features. It's not the right time to switch to scons yet.
> > 
> > TTimo
> > 
> > On Thu, 16 May 2002 10:33:14 +0200
> > Nadim Khemir <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Timothee, 
> > > 
> > > Don't expect anything to happen. I pointed exactly the same problem
> > months
> > > ago. 2.3.0 is the best way to kill cons, it's so broken that I almost
> > gave
> > > up using cons, till some generous soul pointed to CVS.
> > > 
> > > There is a python implementation that supports parallel construction
> > (search
> > > for SCons) it's a new product but it's not worse than 2.3.0. Hope this
> > > helps.
> > > 
> > > Nadim.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Timothee Besset [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:24 AM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: cons 2.3.1 release?
> > > > 
> > > > Last official cons release is 2.3.0, about a year ago. I know the CVS
> > > > version has several things fixed, cause 2.3.0 doesn't work for me and
> > I
> > > > have to use CVS on some projects (for a dependencies fix, and external
> > > > commands I think).
> > > > 
> > > > A new release would be a good idea? Is Rajesh still maintaining cons
> > as
> > > > stated on the web page?
> > > > 
> > > > My over problem is the lack of a working parallel cons (more on that
> > > > later).
> > > > 
> > > > TTimo
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss
> > > > Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > [email protected]
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss
> > Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/
> ###########################################
> This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> [email protected]
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss
> Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/
> 

_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss
Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/