Then, as we discuss on the replies to this, shouldn't there be a "task force" dealing with the matter for what it concerns Rust? Personal preferences lead to conflicts; reaching a consensus requires a wider set of options discussed inproper setting and community audience.
So far, there is little more presented here than personal preferences. These could be used as a basis for what the definitive solution to this matter should be. Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: >On 1/14/14 1:29 AM, comex wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, George Makrydakis >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Again, note that this rather long thread is about discussing in the >end what >>> the official stance should be. There is no valid reason other than >lack of >>> manpower and / or language immaturity for having to depend on ruby, >python, >>> autotools, cmake or whatever else in order to build rust software. >> >> There is no reason every language should have its own build system >> written from scratch (or package manager, for that matter); the goals >> of each language community are really mostly identical, and the >> existing duplication leads to software that's worse than it has to be >> (e.g. inconsistent support for signed packages), a waste of time >> relearning the same concepts for multiple build systems / package >> managers, and difficulty for packages that include code written in >> multiple languages. Meanwhile, satisfying the dependencies you >> mentioned is trivial on most systems. >> >> However, I'd say there is a stunning lack of existing build systems >> that actually combine a clean design, flexibility, portability, and >> performance. autotools fails badly on design, performance, and >> (ironically) portability; cmake fails on design (seriously, try to >> read any cmake script) and flexibility (a lot of stuff is hard coded >> in C++ and hard to change); most of the alternatives I know about are >> at least slow, and often poorly maintained, insufficiently general, >et >> cetera. The only build tool I really like is ninja, and it's >> designed to be used with input generated from a separate tool rather >> than alone. So I'd personally like to see a new build system >regardless. > >This e-mail sums up my feelings to a T, and it's why I'm conflicted >about the whole matter. > >Patrick > >_______________________________________________ >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
