21–30 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should definitely take a look at bazel. This is not say bazel is better than the one you wrote but cleary bazel is becoming a industry standard making other build tools obsolete.
Ok, I will look at it, as far as I know, cmake seems to be more popular than bazel. At least I rarely see projects that use bazel, although I don’t like the syntax of cmake very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't compared it to bazel, but if you like the description style of xmake for the project or you like lua, you can try it.
You should definitely take a look at bazel. This is not say bazel is better than the one you wrote but cleary bazel is becoming a industry standard making other build tools obsolete.
The hoops one has to jump through to get it running on Windows are a joke (TBH, the list of prerequisites and potential issues looks like a UNIX programmer was confronted for the first time with Windows):
https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/install-windows.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't compared it to bazel, but if you like the description style of xmake for the project or you like lua, you can try it.
You should definitely take a look at bazel. This is not say bazel is better than the one you wrote but cleary bazel is becoming a industry standard making other build tools obsolete.
The industry standard is CMake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't compared it to bazel, but if you like the description style of xmake for the project or you like lua, you can try it.
You should definitely take a look at bazel. This is not say bazel is better than the one you wrote but cleary bazel is becoming a industry standard making other build tools obsolete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should definitely take a look at bazel. This is not say bazel is better than the one you wrote but cleary bazel is becoming a industry standard making other build tools obsolete.
I'm sure once it works, bazel is great and all, but Windows seems to have been an afterthought (which makes that whole "industry standard" thing a bit "complicated"). The hoops one has to jump through to get it running on Windows are a joke (TBH, the list of prerequisites and potential issues looks like a UNIX programmer was confronted for the first time with Windows): https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/install-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scons is effectively dead, and I wish people would start removing it from the Python build systems web pages. Meson is written in Python and isn't dead. However, Meson requires a partner to actually build things--something like cmake or ninja. However, I think the original poster meant "Why Lua instead of Python?" And the only real answer is "Because that's what the author wanted to use."
btw: There's also Waf written in Python, which also isn't dead.
Eventually fatigue sets in, you pick a tech, and stick with it even as the tech fades into obscurity and nobody can figure out how to build your project anymore, let alone integrate it :/
The time that is spent dicking around with these silly build systems/tools is always time that is wasted and sank into useless activities without any value added in the end product.
Unfortunately no build tool can ever really improve productivity in absolute terms. They can only ever "improve" relatively, i.e by sucking less and reducing productivity less than some other competing build tools. The time that is spent dicking around with these silly build systems/tools is always time that is wasted and sank into useless activities without any value added in the end product.
Unfortunately no build tool can ever really improve productivity in absolute terms. They can only ever "improve" relatively, i.e by sucking less and reducing productivity less than some other competing build tools. The time that is spent dicking around with these silly build systems/tools is always time that is wasted and sank into useless activities without any value added in the end product.
I completely disagree. Do you want to go back to typing g++ commands by hand for each source file? That's not a build tool and yet it is objectively worse than even a crappy build tool.
Let me illustrate. Your software is a product X. It has some value V (as by some measure of value, perhaps $ earned). The product X is the ultimate output of some build tool T.
Now image you had this incredible build tool that produced X without any programmer doing any build related work ever at all. Your build output is X and value is V. 100% of your developer effort can go towards working on X and increasing V!
Now in reality you spend some amount of time writing build files, working with the build, fixing bugs in the build files, generally maintaining it. This is typically non zero effort and the cost grows above linearly wrt respect to build configurations/platforms supported etc.
However the output of the build tool is still the same X and value is still V. So your build tool added 0 value!
In fact any build tool can only ever decrease your product's value. Why? How? Because of the cost of messing with the build is non-zero and you spend time on it that could otherwise be spent working on actual things that produce more value (such as adding new features or fixing bugs or whatever). i.e. you can only put 100% - "build effort" amount of effort towards working on X and increasing V.