OT: building tools (was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.1 plans)

[Magnus Therning]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:22:04PM -0700, Jonathan Walther wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:34:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>Jonathan Walther <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>If it will be small, portable, and reasonably efficient, and include
>>>support for macros, I would like to use it to create an alternative to
>>>"make" that also folds in the conveniences of imake.
>>
>>IMHO, Peter Miller's cook is already a very usable make alternative...
>
>Does it give me the full programming power of the Scheme language?  I
>envision something like this:
>
>(rule "foo" (list "a1.o" "a2.o" "a3.o")
>       (strcat (CC) " " (CFLAGS) " " (DEPENDS) " -o " (TARGET)))
>
>With macro facilities, the sky is the limit; imake and autotools
>functionality can be extended on with very little extra effort.  It's
>not about replacing make; it's about replacing the whole damn build
>system. :)

Arc seems to come pretty close, have you had a look at it?

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/arc/
http://www.eyestep.org/arc/

Is Scheme a must? If Perl would suffice then you have Cons, if you'd
rather have Python, then there's SCons.

http://scons.org/ (for links to both Cons and SCons)
http://www.scons.org/ (home of SCons)

I have used SCons a bit, but the others I haven't had time to explore
yet.

/M

-- 
Magnus Therning                    (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
address@hidden
http://members.chello.nl/m.therning/

It is a myth that people resist change. People resist what other people
make them do, not what they themselves choose to do...  That's why
companies that innovate successfully year after year seek their people's
ideas, let them initiate new projects and encourage more experiments.
     -- Rosabeth Moss Kanter

pgpamG2gjjIrt.pgp
Description: PGP signature