From: Christian Boos Date: 2001-12-20T21:19:30+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:29102] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (stderr from external process?) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C18958.F2A60B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Apparently the interest is there... good! I'll make some comments on some of the answers I got. Sorry for the poor formatting, I happen to use MS Outlook, which has no (or hidden) support for properly quoting the original message; if someone can enlighten me on that, I will be thankful :) -----Original Message----- From: zzz@cisco.com [mailto:zzz@cisco.com]On Behalf Of Michael Cook Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:59 PM To: ruby-talk ML Subject: [ruby-talk:28970] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (stderr from external process?) Stefan Schmiedl writes: > Christian Boos (2001-12-20 01:57): >> I am planning to work on a 'make' replacement tool (written in >> Ruby of course) in the following weeks. Not much work done yet. I >> just wanted to see if there is some interest/existing work in the >> community on this subject. > > take a look at the Ant projekt, originating from apache. it's an > xml-based make replacement. you might want to consider being > ant.xml compatible. see also cons, which is a make alternative written in perl. http://www.dsmit.com/cons/ ------------------- I didn't know about 'cons'. The closest I knew about was 'Bras' (http://wsd.iitb.fhg.de/~kir/brashome/) which is based on Tcl. The design intent is definitely the same: not a special purpose limited language which does the task well in a given environment (e.g. 'make'), but whose limitations are so huge that the need for adding new features and tricks becomes mandatory ('GNU-make'), but is still unsufficient. For example, GNU-make has limited pattern replacement possibilities ($(subst) and $(patsubst)), but when you want some more complex things, you have to use $(shell sed -e whatever), which is perhaps OK on Linux, but a hell on windows (we do it, and I don't understand why my coworkers still speak to me :) So basically, accepting the need to have to use a REAL language is all it gets. That's also why I find Ant a little bit annoying. Sure, you have good looking, well structured XML 'build' files. I'm sure you can write stylesheets to make them look good. But this comes at a cost, and this cost is lost of flexibility, because you just don't want to create yet another Ant 'task' for the little problem at hand, and therefore you can be stuck. With a script language, you can find a workaround for anything, and later refactor that workaround in the base system if useful. (is there a trademark on "Pragmatic Programming"? :) I would use Bras (or Cons) if I wouldn't believe I could do it even better in Ruby :) -- Christian Boos -- Consulting Software Engineer -- BCT Technology AG ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C18958.F2A60B20 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Christian Boos.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Christian Boos.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Boos;Christian;;Dr FN:Christian Boos NICKNAME:cb ORG:BCT Technology AG;Development TITLE:Consulting Software Engineer TEL;WORK;VOICE:+49(0)7852996206 TEL;WORK;FAX:+49(0)7852996100 ADR;WORK:;;Im Lossenfeld 9;Willst=E4tt;;D-77731 LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:Im Lossenfeld = 9=3D0D=3D0AWillst=3DE4tt D-77731 URL: URL:http://www.bct-technology.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:cboos@bct-technology.com REV:20011205T163634Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C18958.F2A60B20--