what about using a well known build system as a transition to a custom, rust-written build tool? If this is not planned in rust roadmap, I can't see how this will work.
For me it's the same old dilemna: write my tool or use an existing one? Same for doc... should we use sphinx or write a customized tool? ----- Gaetan 2014/1/11 George Makrydakis <[email protected]> > There is little reason to believe that having a build system in Rust would > make It harder for people to package. > > I do understand the predependecy argument, but the Rust compiler itself in > order to compile has predependencies anyway, as does any similar project. > Therefore the decisional weight of choosing a non - rust based solution > over a rust one because Debian packagers have problems packaging a compiler > is not adequately justified. > > Using a well known build system as a means to appeal to programmers is > seemingly an advantage, but it does not exonerate them from having to be > competent in Rust before they write useful programs. And that has a > learning curve superior to that of a build system. > > As for boost's jam I have nothing to say other than boost having its own > build system makes it easy for boost first; this does not mean that their > needs are those of everybody else and boost is a library, not a programming > language itself. So, again, a decision based on picking a popular solution > on the basis of such a comparison, has flawed background. > > Lastly, imagine the irony of Rust proposing to use python, c, c++ based > build tools for simple packages. That would make packagers more frustrated > because of a wider set of dependecies. While end users would have to also > deal with a known system, its eventual inadequacies could not be met > directly by Rust devs unless they start amending that system in order to > deal with them. Therefore, maintenance overhead is inescapable either way, > with the pessimization of relying in another nom - Rust project in order to > make it worth your while to enjoy programming in Rust. > > The only valid argument against having a build system proposed as the > official, defacto, cross - platform way of building rust packages written > in rust is its development and maintenance overhead for the rust core team > itself. > > That problem is easily circumvented by not proposing one right now and > letting it to the end developer decide. If however an official build system > is to be proposed, Rust developers merit having it done on their own > platform, thus proving rust's worth. It is 2014 after all. > > G. > > > > Lee Braiden <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 10/01/14 08:16, Gaetan wrote: > >> > >> I am not in favor of a customized build system. For instance boost > >> library use their jam build system, and i never figured how to use it > > > >> in my projects. > >> > >> I push to use standard and well proved build system like cmake or > >> scons, at least for major components. This would give a nice example > >> of how to use it in any projects. > >> > > > >I'd agree with that on both counts: the principle of using something > >standard, and the two recommendations. > > > >CMake would probably get my vote, because it's not so much a build > >tool, > >as a meta tool for whichever system you prefer, so it would fit in well > > > >with various platform-specific IDEs, unusual platforms (android, > >embedded, ...), etc. That said, scons is also a strong contender, and > >which of the two is more open to integrating patches and working with > >new languages is very much worth considering. > > > >I think Rust will be contributing to the wider community by lending its > > > >support (and patches) to a common, modern build system, AND it will get > > > >something back in terms of users who already know the build system. > > > > > >> On Friday, January 10, 2014, George Makrydakis wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> Having a build system entirely dependent of Rust alone, would > >> make the entire experience in deploying the language > >extremely > >> cohere. The only counter - argument is indeed that it would > >> require some work to get this to fruition. I would like to > >> know if this has any chance of getting priority soon enough. > >> > > > >Bear in mind that Debian are having a lot of issues packaging Rust > >already, because it self-compiles. If the build tool also had a Rust > >pre-dependency, that would be a big step backwards. > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
