Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:32:27AM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
> This brings up the question of what "moving on" means for those currently
> using Cons.  Is/will there some way to move from Cons to SCons/Python?
> Other than rewriting all Construct and Conscript files by hand I mean.
[snip]

Exactly. I have moved several of my personal projects to Cons. Why do I
have to revisit all of them again just to re-write the conscripts for
SCons? Plus, I have started using Perl scripts for various aspects of the
build (although not part of the Conscripts themselves) -- moving to SCons
means my projects now have yet another build requirement (Python). I
wouldn't want to rewrite all those Perl scripts in Python just because I
want to use SCons.

Maybe, as somebody pointed out, we should have a core Cons/SCons package,
written in whatever language of choice the developers happen to like, and
then have front-ends that can work with either Perl or Python (or whatever
else people might want, like Ruby). If designed properly, the front-ends
should be relatively simple to implement for various different languages,
and we don't have to duplicate effort implementing the core. If SCons
could go this way, then I'll happily support it and keep my existing
Conscripts in Perl.


T

-- 
WINDOWS = Will Install Needless Data On Whole System -- CompuMan

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