From: Alan Gutierrez Date: 2005-10-01T08:50:07+09:00 Subject: Re: Rake, Rant, A-A-P * Phil Tomson [2005-09-30 17:37]: > In article , wrote: > > I'd like to start working with C++ again. What's held me back is not > > wanting to mess around with configure + make again. > > I can symphathize. > > > > > I'm casting about for a new build tool that will work on different > > platforms, and I think this would be a good time to learn Ruby. > > > > I'm a confused about the difference between Rake and Rant. I'd like to > > build C++ primarily, so it would be nice if the build tool knew about > > various C++ tasks, wasn't totally Ruby oriented. > > > > (I've used rake for a couple of small projects and I've never used Rant, so > take that into consideration). I know that Rake is not just oriented towards > Ruby. Though it's written in Ruby people use Rake for building Java > projects, for example. I used Rake to build for an obscure HDL simulator. I > think rake would make a great make replacement in the C++ domain. As far > as 'knowing' about various C++ build tasks, perhaps that is something that > will happen via people posting rake 'recipes'? Maybe people can contribute > some generic rake functions that would be useful in different domains? The word 'recipe' jumped out at me on the A-A-P site. It is a keyword in software builds. A recipe for daemons, or string bundles, or for generating includes. Something done easily in Ruby, I'm sure. It would be nice to chatter about how to do that. I think it would work out well for C++. A lot of the compatbilty checks for C compilers could be specified easily, in yaml, and put on a web site for browsing. GNU M4 is just depressing. Rake versus Rant is starting to get confusing. :( I'm not sure why Ruby needs two build systems. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com - http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html - http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml