On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Rendaw <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I mean being able to write a scrip that parses your build configuration and converts it to another language with no loss. If would be pretty trivial to write a script that reads Tupfiles and spits out Makefiles (thought getting the implicit dependencies would require accessing tup's database I suppose...). How hard would it be to write a script that reads a large CMake project and spits out equivalent SCons? My guess is pretty damn hard! > 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. > I have to admit it does seem nice, and I'll probably use it at some point too... > What sort of declarative language were you thinking of that wouldn't > require significantly more core functionality? > I think answering that would be worth a Ph.D., and I sure as hell don't want to go through getting another! :) -- -- 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.
