Excerpts from Matti Niemenmaa's message of Sun Jan 18 19:47:46 +0100 2009: > Henning Thielemann wrote: > > Matti Niemenmaa schrieb: > >> Announcing the release of Coadjute, version 0.0.1! > >> > >> Web site: http://iki.fi/matti.niemenmaa/coadjute/ > >> Hackage: > >> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/Coadjute > <snip> > > How does it compare to > > http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/hake > > Short answer: the question that comes to mind is "how does hake compare > to make?" Coadjute seems to be more capable, in general, but then I > don't know pretty much anything about hake. > > Somewhat longer answer: > > Coadjute is better in that: > 1. hake's documentation is rather sparse. I have no idea what most > functions do, or even what exactly the main program does. > 2. hake doesn't seem to do parallel builds, but I'm not sure because > of point 1. > 3. Coadjute keeps track of command line arguments (see docs for > details): for me this is really a killer feature, I don't know of > anything else which does this.
ocamlbuild does this. > 4. hake always uses timestamps, Coadjute can use MD5 hashes as well. > 5. Coadjute can have arbitrary path specifications, hake's rules seem > to be based on file extensions only, thus applying only to the > current directory. Peter Miller's "Recursive Make Considered > Harmful" comes to mind: http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/ [...] Moreover, it seems that Coadjute and ocamlbuild share a fair number of design choices, maybe having a look at it could be fruitful. Best regards, -- Nicolas Pouillard _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe