Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Developers Move Closer To Dropping Autotools Build System In Favor Of Meson

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    meson has 786 open issues, so raised bug is unlikely to be served soon
    i know ridiculous bug of combinatorial explosion of library parameter lists ( -l and -L ) generating ninja file of several gigabytes size for project with few dozen of dependencies and i decided to work it around by unfolding every dependency instead of reporting it
    Did not even know that hard fact, but if true it certainly makes it the best, and maybe fastest several gigabyte generator out there, … well, maybe at least closely followed by dd=/dev/zero, … ;-

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
      in autotools make is not the slowest part. slowest part is shell configure.
      That and calling the compiler for testing gazillion, often unnecessary nonsense. I do not use any of this in my projects, and simply use things like sizeof(int) and such in the code that just magically works everywhere, instead of HAVE_THIS, SIZEOF_THAT, … configure problem fixed naturally, ..! ;-)

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by rene View Post

        that one needs to read other distributions scripts / config and examples does not even make this meson stuff to be so easy, natural, and most awesome to use, … :-/
        Meson is better than autotools. But Mesa is a monster of a project, and figuring out how to configure it is hard no matter what you use. So why not use what distros already figured out?

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by rene View Post

          That and calling the compiler for testing gazillion, often unnecessary nonsense. I do not use any of this in my projects, and simply use things like sizeof(int) and such in the code that just magically works everywhere, instead of HAVE_THIS, SIZEOF_THAT, … configure problem fixed naturally, ..! ;-)
          That isn't really an alternative. How can you make pre-processor based decisions on code inclusion using sizeof()? For simple things it's fine, and the compiler takes care of generating correct code, but there are many cases where that isn't optimal at all.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by s_j_newbury View Post
            That isn't really an alternative. How can you make pre-processor based decisions on code inclusion using sizeof()? For simple things it's fine, and the compiler takes care of generating correct code, but there are many cases where that isn't optimal at all.
            It won't even compile in most cases.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
              C/C++ is perhaps one of the worst languages for writing software, and the least maintainable . Every large C project has had major security problems.
              I have always admired the simplicity of C. Not a fan of C++ although I understand why it's popular.

              Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
              if Python could support backwards compatibility it would be far, far better than C or C++
              Are you smoking your socks? (I don't know how Python can be compared directly to C/C++ across the board, apples and oranges)

              Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
              When Python 3 came about, they should have committed to backwards compatibility, at least having a compiler for Python 2 that can run on the same VM as python 3 and allow them to share dependandancies. i question the philosophy behind Python making a breaking change to the language.
              How do you provide backwards compatibility for this?

              Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
              I also disagree with Python in numerous other instances in the manner it imposes politically driven restrictions such as the lack of increment operator and its jingoist attitude on goto, that because someone made some witty comment about goto, that goto is bad. People just parrot that over and over again, its like how they parrot X is bloated or whatever. There is nothing wrong with goto an goto code can be completely readable, in some cases better than structured conditionals. So I do not appreciate Pythons condescending attitude. Its important to note the whole point of a language is syntax sugar. If a language was not supposed to have syntax sugar, we would just code in in binary, If your not coding in binary, your using syntax sugar. Despite Python is head and shoulders above C.
              I understand the usage of goto in some places in C, for example: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/bl...re/dev.c#L1640 but saying that structured programming in high level languages like Python is bad. That I can not understand. If you want to explain it, I'm open to learning or gaining a different perspective.

              Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
              I however prefer Perl and its philosophies.
              TLDR; Ironically Perl's philosophies prevents it from being a pragmatic candidate for large system, web, and application programming projects. That's not to say that it's not possible to use Perl of previously mentioned projects, look at PHP and it's accomplishments.

              I came to the following conclusion after using Modern Perl for 3 years (full-time): In order to be an acceptable Perl programmer you need to check a lot of boxes.

              Few examples:
              • Without a shadow of a doubt need a lot of programming experience preferably in more than one language prior to learning Perl. You should never learn about thread safety and OOP for the first time using Perl as a foundation.
              • Patience when frequently reading loads of bloated documentation and spaghetti code (it's not unheard of to find people that actually enjoy this).
              • The unopinionated syntax and coupling with shell gives great flexibility and allows you to solve small problems very quickly using the arsenal of potentially redundant and non-portable built-in utilities offers. If you lack the tiniest bit of self-control or assumed-knowledge in Perl or the domain-specific language or your team choose to embed it could mean the end of you and or your project.
              • Attention to the smallest detail introduced by syntax sugar and super-human-skill to write close to perfect (secure) code before completing your task/module. Debugging is something you want to avoid at all cost as it's much more expensive due to the amount of variables and lack of tooling.
              • Independent, this is probably the most important. If someone does not think the same way as you or have the exact same idea, then it can lead to all sorts of problems.
              • You need to be able to bless cows, okay this was just a joke! 8-)
              You might read this and think, sure that's what all programmers need. The relativity of these concepts are also very important. Some of the top software companies in the world can't use something as relatively opinionated like Javascript and they call their software: "Ultra Fast", "Mega Secure", and "Super Reliable". It has been proven over and over in reality not all programmers (especially junior) have these attributes and all people make mistakes.

              Diminishing returns comes quicker than expected when your project grows and you need to maintain backwards compatibility. Popularity is obviously also a problem when you depend on community maintained libraries, but that's a given with any language. It's just that Perl is becoming less popular as we are using libraries instead of applications and keep moving further away from text based interfaces like /dev/tty232.

              I find Golang is best language for high level non-system programming for large projects. Typescript comes close, just not as practical unless you are doing "web" development.

              Edit: Python is an awesome scripting language, easy to learn and seems to keep gaining popularity in various industries (financial, biology, data-science, etc). I know many big companies that use it successfully in big projects too. There are many solutions out there.

              Back on topic: I have not used meson yet, looking forward to trying it out.
              Last edited by Jabberwocky; 12-07-2018, 01:32 AM. Reason: Added python complement

              Comment

              Working...
              X