On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 00:16 +0200, Gour D. wrote: [ . . . ] > Here is the waf list: > > http://code.google.com/p/waf/wiki/ProjectsUsingWaf
The SCons list is at http://www.scons.org/wiki/SconsProjects but I think there are some big users who haven't signed up there. Intel for one who use SCons with their "huge modules" support system Parts that is a bolt on to SCons. So user lists are only as good as the marketing department of the product and Waf and SCons have none whilst Kitware does! [ . . . ] > Waf really looks good and, afaics, it's more extensible than Scons. I would put them both the same. The Waf plugin API is though a little more sophisticated. > Here is the table with some comparisons: > > http://code.google.com/p/waf/wiki/WafAndOtherBuildSystems One or two of those categories have been neatly crafted so as to ensure Waf comes out on top. Also sadly there are a number of error in the table, some boxes have a No in them where they should have a Yes. Also the table fails to mention Gradle. Moreover Ant is evolving and Maven 3 likewise so that Groovy (a dynamic programming language) can be used to replace XML at the front end, and used with Java and Scala to create plugins. The line that is serious though is the Dependencies line. Make uses timestamps which can mean incomplete builds or over building. Using hashes as Waf and SCons do means you always get the right about of work done. Both allow you to switch off the hashes and use timestamps (which are generally quicker) but CMake doesn't allow you to use hashes to get correct builds. This was the single biggest factor for the large companies that use Waf and SCons as they have 56hour builds and so minimizing the work done whilst ensuring correctness of the work done is critical. Hence hashes, hence Waf and SCons,. [ . . . ] > > Only dist for tarballs, afaict. I thought Waf did zipfiles as well, SCons certainly does both. Is there a need for anything else beyond those? > Jens> * Publishing build/test results > > No idea. Depends what is meant. If Waf and SCons don't have it then a few minutes and a Python plugin later you have the facility. > Jens> * No dependencies besides a C++ compiler for installation. > > This is one advantage of waf that it only requires ~80K python script > which is, usually, distributed with the sources. SCons can do the same but this is rarely done where it is the standard form for Waf. This shows the different philosophies behind Waf and SCons and consequently can be the deciding factor often. [ . . . ] > In any case, it's interesting and we'll put it on our evaluation-list. Happy evoluation :-) -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
