[rust-dev] RFC: Future of the Build System

Gaetan gaetan at xeberon.net
Tue Jan 14 02:03:49 PST 2014

> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140114/4246966e/attachment.html>

More information about the Rust-dev mailing list