Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 06:38:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
The selling points, to me, are:
1) the automatic dependency detection through filesystem hooks
2) recipes also are dependencies
3) the genericity/low-level. I believe build systems should let me
define my own abstractions, instead of trying to define for me what an
"executable" or a "static library" should be.
i'm not that all excited by "1", though. tbh, i prefer simplier things,
like regexp scanning. while regexp scanners may find more dependencies
than there really are, they doesn't require any dirty tricks to work.
I understand your point ; I was explaining to my colleagues yesterday
that "1" was a "good step in the wrong direction".
..
However: "1" is still a "good" step. Compared to where we are now, it's
in theory equivalent to perfectly doing regexp/gcc-MM scanning, in a
langage agnostic way. It's a net win!
it is still a kludge. and it has a huge chance to stay with us for a very
long time -- this is what usually happens with kludges. ;-)
