Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Goals: Red Hat Developer Working On New Tool To Improve Upon Make

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

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by cbdougla View Post
    Looks interesting.

    I admit though when I first saw the post, my first thought was "they're going to incorporate Make into systemd."
    It's probably going to happen when it's ready. All praise its holy name.

    Leave a comment:


  • mkrupcale
    replied
    Originally posted by Blahblah View Post
    It would be nice to see a C/C++ equivalent of the cargo build system. As, in, doesn't have to be appropriate for all projects ever written, but is extremely low maintenance and parses the source to automatically resolve dependencies.
    build2 is a a cargo-like build toolchain written in C++. It is like make in the sense that its build files have a notion of targets, prerequisites, and rules. However, it does extract some source code dependency information such as the usual header dependencies and even C++20 modules. Plus it's highly extensible (especially with the introduction of build system modules in v0.12) and can deal with generated source code dependencies defined by rules such as the in module.

    Then there are package-level dependencies which are dealt with using a normal package manifest file analogous to the Cargo.toml file.

    Full disclosure: I'm the build2 package maintainer on Fedora.

    Leave a comment:


  • thalaric
    replied
    Just https://github.com/casey/just is another take on an updated Make, written in Rust.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbdougla
    replied
    Looks interesting.

    I admit though when I first saw the post, my first thought was "they're going to incorporate Make into systemd."

    Leave a comment:


  • andreano
    replied
    What I would change is not the syntax, but its meaning, to be more sane.

    - Every variable in Make is semantically an array, yet Make manages to not support arrays.
    - Not invoke the shell implicitly.
    - Handle recursion holistically.
    Last edited by andreano; 01-14-2020, 02:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by Blahblah View Post
    I'm not saying I would like goals to be like Cargo, I'm saying it would be nice for a separate tool to fill that niche for C/C++. Make fails at that purpose, and presumably goals would as well. But that's okay, because that's not the purpose it was made for.
    I agree with that 100%.

    It doesn't help that my memory sucks and I was too lazy to re-read what you posted and instead remembered it incorrectly...I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I can forget key details that fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blahblah
    replied
    I'm not saying I would like goals to be like Cargo, I'm saying it would be nice for a separate tool to fill that niche for C/C++. Make fails at that purpose, and presumably goals would as well. But that's okay, because that's not the purpose it was made for.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    I also saw that "I hope it's like Cargo" post and thought to myself:
    Every day we stray further from something something...

    Leave a comment:


  • timofonic
    replied
    Originally posted by juarezr View Post

    I can't find any statement reading the notes and README that Goals is a drop-in replacement to Make.

    Also it's not clear but maybe it will come with dependencies to OCaml and Perl. This will just stress the developer system setup already crowded with libraries and version requirements.

    I would expect that a so basic build tool like this doesn't have intrusive dependencies and would be a simple standalone executable built in a compiled language like C, C++, Go or Rust. Also don't forget Windows and others SOs where make works.

    The problems that it solves are the same as 70's Make putting it far distant of modern turbo charged build/package/release tools like maven/grade/cargo/npm/etc...

    So what we can think about it:
    • NIH ?
    • YABT ?
    What you think about?
    I agree, but...

    YABT? You Are Being Trolled?

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by juarezr View Post

    I can't find any statement reading the notes and README that Goals is a drop-in replacement to Make.

    Also it's not clear but maybe it will come with dependencies to OCaml and Perl. This will just stress the developer system setup already crowded with libraries and version requirements.

    I would expect that a so basic build tool like this doesn't have intrusive dependencies and would be a simple standalone executable built in a compiled language like C, C++, Go or Rust. Also don't forget Windows and others SOs where make works.

    The problems that it solves are the same as 70's Make putting it far distant of modern turbo charged build/package/release tools like maven/grade/cargo/npm/etc...

    So what we can think about it:
    • NIH ?
    • YABT ?
    What you think about?
    Neither can I, but I did say "If Goals can be a drop in replacement". IF is the keyword.

    I was also wondering about the dependencies requirement too.

    I also saw that "I hope it's like Cargo" post and thought to myself: "Iz you a tard?" due to all the places and languages that make is expected to work with.

    It does aim to solve shell and scripting issues without requiring people to know about hacks like .PHONY and whatnot. If it can do that while acting as a drop-in replacement, then it is worth the effort and will have mine and a lot of other's gratitude. There's another IF there.

    What I think about? Let's not go there

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X