On 11/13/06, Jorge Vargas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/13/06, Eric S. Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this just got a bit out of topic > > Jim Fulton wrote: > > > zc.buildout's main improvement over > > > make is the use of Python as it's scripting language. > > > > speaking as someone who has detested make from the minute I encountered > > itsome 30 years ago, I think this is a big improvement. > same here although I have to say I have much less years alive :) > it gets really nasty went you get into the autotools stuff > > I believe for my needs I'll try to get my hand made Makefile don't get > too complicated and don't go agains the flow with the gnome people > > But it also > > makes me wonder why didn't you use scons? It seems like it does > > everything make it does only in a more easily understood way and has an > > established user base. > > > I'm interested in that too, I was considering scons as a alternative > for a bigger project of mine, any specific reasons why you left it out > > for me the main resistance to using scons is that bumpy case words are > > significant accessibility impediment. For example, how would you > > pronounce "Build" and "build"? For most people they sound exactly the > > same. To differentiate requires a lot of additional noise either spoken > > or heard.
Personally I don't like scons because it doesn't look like Python code to me, and it seems very monolithic. A lot of that is probably because I didn't really start using Python until 2.1.. but I definitely think it could've been done better wrt to catering to Python programmers without making it hard to use for anyone else. I haven't looked at zc.buildout yet, so I can't say if it feels better or worse. -bob _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
