On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:14 PM, <s...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Ondrej> ... while scons and other Python solutions imho encourage to > Ondrej> write full Python programs, which imho is a disadvantage for the > Ondrej> build system, as then every build system is nonstandard. > > Hmmm... Like distutils setup scripts?
fortunately, waf and scons are much better than distutils, at least for the build part :) I think it is hard to overestimate the importance of a python solution for python softwares (python itself is different). Having a full fledged language for complex builds is nice, I think most familiar with complex makefiles would agree with this. > > I don't know thing one about cmake, but if it's good for the goose (building > Python proper) would it be good for the gander (building extensions)? For complex softwares, specially ones relying on lot of C and platform idiosyncrasies, distutils is just too cumbersome and limited. Both Ondrej and me use python for scientific usage, and I think it is no hazard that we both look for something else. In those cases, scons - and cmake it seems - are very nice; build tools are incredibly hard to get right once you want to manage dependencies automatically. For simple python projects (pure python, a few .c source files without much dependencies), I think it is just overkill. cheers, David > > -- > Skip Montanaro - s...@pobox.com - http://www.smontanaro.net/ > "XML sucks, dictionaries rock" - Dave Beazley > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/cournape%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
