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

George Makrydakis irrequietus at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 12:17:06 PST 2014


Already too much I guess.

Gaetan <gaetan at xeberon.net> wrote:
>rust need llvm, make, wget, bash script, python, autotools... it's just
>a
>matter of choice of which external tool you accept to rely on....
>
>-----
>Gaetan
>
>
>
>2014/1/14 George Makrydakis <irrequietus at gmail.com>
>
>> Lack of manpower. Correct. As I have written elsewhere in these
>threads,
>> this is why an interim solution of a third party tool should perhaps
>be
>> choosen, instead of sactioning a build system in any language relic X
>as
>> the official tool.
>>
>> Closer to 1.0, the need will become more apparent. I do not see a
>task
>> team / working group proposing this and in order for any official
>guideline
>> to be followed, this is a step to be taken. Wasn't this the purpose
>of this
>> thread?
>>
>> Perhaps this is what comex is trying to say, albeit with his own
>peculiar
>> rhetorical structure - I doubt that anybody is "trolling", knowingly.
>I
>> still think that for the intended scope, Rust should just need Rust.
>>
>>
>> Gaetan <gaetan at xeberon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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/20140114/197bcb73/attachment.html>


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list