On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 00:19 +0100, Rob T wrote: […] > I definitely do not like Make. The scripts are made out of > garbage, and maintaining garbage just produces more waste. > Unfortunately for me, my attempts to make use of scons is not > encouraging. It may be better than Make, but not enough for me to > settle down with it.
I would suggest you haven't given SCons long enough to get into the SCons idioms, but you have to go with the route that is most comfortable for you. > The two problems I mentioned were encountered almost immediately. > These are inability to scan subfolders recursively, and inability > to build to a level above the source folder. I don't think that > neither requirement has anything to do with thinking in terms of > Make. It could be that solving these two deficiencies may be > enough to keep me going with scons, I don't know. I do not see why you need to scan subfolders recursively. This is a traditional Make approach. SCons does things differently even for highly hierarchical systems. In particular use of SConscript files handles everything. So I do not think this is a SCons problem. Of course if you have to do things recursively then os.walk is the function you need. […] > I don't think it's a bug, because it's actually documented as a > feature. It may however be a "bug" in terms of the assumptions > about how applications should be built. As noted in the exchanges to which I cc you in everything I sent, SCons does insist on having all directories in use under the directory with the SConstruct – unless you have with Default. On reflection I am now much less worried about this that I was at first. Out of source tree I find essential in any build, SCons does this well, Make less so. Out of project tree builds I am now not really worried about. […] > I have only used Make, and as bad as it is, at least I can scan > subfolders with one built-in command. But why do you want to do this? Why doesn't os.walk achieve what you need with SCons? […] > Scons is far too rigid with the assumptions it makes, and IMO > some of the assumptions are plain wrong. I disagree. I find Make totally rigid and unyielding. Not to mention rooted in 1977 assumptions of code. > For example, building to a location out of the source tree has > the obvious advantage that your source tree remains a source > tree. I don't understand how anyone can consider this unusual or > not necessary. If a source tree is to be a tree containing source > code, then recursive scanning and building out of the tree is an > essential requirement. I always build out of source tree using SCons, to do otherwise is insanity, yes Autotools I am looking at you. However I have a source directory in my project directory and can then have many build directories in the project directory. Building a project for multiple platforms makes this essential. SCons supports this very well with the Variant system. […] > You are correct, only Python, which on a Linux system is normally > installed by default. I was refering to the need to manually > build scons from from a source repository in order to get latest > D support. I know I'm in the bleeding edge zone when it comes to > D, so a certain amount of hacking is needed, but I'd like to > minimize it as much as possible. You don't need to install SCons to use it, you can use it from a clone directly using the bootstrap system. I have an alias alias scons='python /home/users/russel/Repositories/Mercurial/Masters/SCons_D_Tooling/bootstrap.py' […] > > Or fix SCons? > > I thought of that, however in order to fix scons, I would have to > learn a lot about scons, and also learn Python. The flaws that I > see with scons are so basic, I probably would not fit in with the > scons culture, so I see nothing but pain in trying to fix scons. > I'm also learning D, and would rather spend more of my time > learning D than something else. My only interest with scons is > for using it, not fixing it, and I have no interest in learning > Python. Please stick with the "I don't want to learn Python" as your reason for not working with SCons. That is fine. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you saying "the flaws with SCons are so basic". This is just FUD from a person who hasn't really learnt the SCons way of doing things. So the resolution here is to stop mud-slinging at SCons and say "I am not going to use SCons because it involve working with Python and I don't want to do that." Then people can respect your position. […] > > (*) Think SCons → Python → Monty Python. > > That's how I view most of what is going on in programming land. :-) -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part