On Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 10:21:59 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 23.02.2013 10:20, schrieb SomeDude:
On Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 08:02:41 UTC, Sönke Ludwig
wrote:
To me the most interesting open question is this: Do we
actually gain
from programmatic support for the build description, or does
it suffice
to have a good purely descriptive system? If the former
should be true
for more than 1% of the cases, that would definitely be a
good argument
against pure data.
Well, in the Java world, there is ant. It does the trick, but
it's quite
ugly.
And it also does the really strange thing to actually build up a
procedural build description in a declarative (+ugly) language.
That's
definitely not what I have in mind - what I want is really a
pure
/description/ of the system, from which the build steps (or
anything
else) can be inferred.
In my experience, this ends up with an explosion of plugins or
special cases to handle some tricks in the build. At the end, you
ends up having some kind of programming language, but horribly
designed.
I don't think both contradict themselves, as you can provide
descriptive definition via several declaration with known names.
You can also provide hooks or way to create plugins from withing
the script definition. That were they belongs if you don't want
user to download 10 bazillions plugins in addition to the build
system.
