begin quoting Jon Wahlmann as of Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:58:28PM -0800: [snip] > Yup. SCons is advertised as a "make" replacement along with some > autoconf stuff thrown in. The bonus is it's written using Python, > hence the build scripts are Python scripts, which is a much nicer > language to program in than "make".
I never really liked "programming" in Make, even when I was trying to get it to do some sorta-kinda sophisticate things. Ant headed in the right direction -- make the build file dumb data, and add features to the tool separately. > Good thing I never looked at "cons", the Perl version. Given how > unreadable Perl code can become, my guess is I would have quickly gone > back to Makefiles. My Perl is rusty enough to where I need to grab a book to read nontrivial Perl code. > I'm playing around with SCons on a small project right now. It seems > to be working pretty well. Then again, I'm not exercising it much > yet. Right now it's generating native platform binaries. Pretty soon > I plan on trying to setup up a cross-compiler build environment. Most > likely it'll just be a matter of invoking a different Environment(). What language are you compiling with it? > Anyway, I digress... It's called topic drift. It's okay. :) -- Topic Drifter. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
