From: Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Date: 2001-12-21T08:41:30+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29179] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (Re: stderr from external process?)

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, MikkelFJ wrote:

> So the big question is:
> Why on earth should we clone SCons in Ruby, if we choose to copy the concept
> without bringing something unique to it.
>
Because we know Ruby but don't know Python. ;-)

> Third, it would allow standard build scripting to be done in our favorite
> language.
>
Oh, there it was.

> So - assuming SCons proves worthy as a design model for a Rubuild System the
> next question is:
> Should it attempt to state compatible (not quite as ruby scripting is not
> python scripting), or should it just pick the ideas and go its own way -
> adding distributed builds with no regard to the future direction of SCons?
>
Go our own way. Standards are for whimps! ;-) I'm so tired but can't fall
asleep, sorry...

> Btw: What about an extra dependency step that builds libraries that doesn't
> exists by downloading them automatically. This may be the RAA.succ idea
> Robert Feldt mentions - but since I don't know about RAA.succ I can't tell.
>
That would be one good thing yes.

> Note that this has nothing to do with the build tool per se. It is just
> another build task like zipping files or compiling. It's just dependencies
> taken a step further.
> 
Right you are. I guess it puts some req's on the generality of the
design though.

> The above is just a bit of brainstorming, and I haven't even looked closely
> at SCons yet.
> 
Me neither; please report your findings.

Regards,

Robert