On Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:46:55 PM UTC+9, Andrew Wagner wrote: > > With a procedural specification language, it is easy to hammer out a huge > pile of (often metaprogrammed) code that is difficult to read, and damn > near impossible to parse automatically. > What do you mean by parse automatically? Make might not be the best example of a declarative language, but it seems just as easy to make unreadable declarative code as it is to make unreadable imperative code.
> > It seems to me that the tup-using community is at a bit of a unique > crossroads. Tup supports both a (not great, but decent) declarative > specification language, and an imperative specification language (the lua > parser), and users are left to decide which they will use. > I'm not against a declarative language, but having Lua allowed me to fairly easily support some complex build setups and I haven't had any particular issues maintaining the scripts. What sort of declarative language were you thinking of that wouldn't require significantly more core functionality? -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
