Re: SCons

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Matthew A. Nicholson wrote:

> > Nasty python goo, immature and unimpressive. It doesn't do anything
> > that automake doesn't, but it does do it slower, with more
> > dependencies, and with less features.
> >
> > Besides which we already have a perfectly functional build system.
> >
>
> You old hat's should have a more open mind, I don't mean to come here and make a
> big issue of this (even thought it looks like I have), but don't knock it until
> you try it.

Don't think we're dismissing this off hand.  We do have open minds, but
an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything that comes your way ;)

One of the fantastic abilities that experience gives you is the ability
to objectively evaluate a tool's worth without actually trying to use it
for something important.

> Scons does plenty make and automake and autoconf can't do, precicly
> why Id used it for the linux bulid of Doom 3.  And many will admin autotools is
> not a perfectly functional build system.

Generally when people say "X can't do Y" they really mean "I don't know
how to make X do Y", and usually that's because they haven't read the
documentation.

Reminds me of a song... "My boomerang won't come back." / "Well first you
gotta throw it..."

> In addition, I could write SConscrips for y-windows and build with scons, and
> you could still keep your autotools stuff and build with that.  The two can
> co-exist.

What would this achieve?

Regards,

  Mark.
-- 
|| Mark Thomas
|| efaref.net
||
|| Meddle not in the affairs of wizards, for <>...ribbit.