> > However, I'd say there is a stunning lack of existing build systems > that actually combine a clean design, flexibility, portability, and > performance. autotools fails badly on design, performance, and > (ironically) portability; cmake fails on design (seriously, try to > read any cmake script)
Same than any language, you can write bloated code or quite pretty things. Just be consistent and think reusability > and flexibility (a lot of stuff is hard coded > in C++ and hard to change); I don't see what you say is hardcoded? At worst, I simply had to rewrite a import module. > most of the alternatives I know about are > at least slow, and often poorly maintained, insufficiently general, et > cetera. The only build tool I really like is ninja, and it's > designed to be used with input generated from a separate tool rather > than alone. So I'd personally like to see a new build system regardless. > I also agree that having a proper build system sounds sexy, however do the rust dev team has enough man power for that? Why not try to assemble a task that will evaluate several existing build system instead of just trolling in this thread, to see exactly what are the advantages and flaws of each candidates?
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
