[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GWL as a build-automation
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: GWL as a build-automation |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Jun 2022 10:50:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.1 |
Hi Olivier,
> So I'm thinking, one could easily do something like this for a simple
> Guile project:
>
> process compile-guile-source (with dot-scm)
> package "guile"
> inputs : file dot-scm
> outputs : file : string-replace-substring dot-scm ".scm" ".go"
> # {
> guild compile --output {{outputs}} {{inputs}}
> }
>
>
> And this could also be done for other projects, e.g.:
>
> process compile-c-source (with dot-c)
> package "gcc-toolchain"
> inputs : file dot-c
> outputs : file : string-replace-substring dot-c ".c" ".o"
> # {
> gcc -c -o {{outputs}} {{inputs}}
> }
It is not entirely surprising to me that the GWL can express this,
because it has really simple abstractions: that of a process and that of
a workflow consisting of processes.
What I do find a little surprising, though, is that there is an apparent
need for declaring processes like this. The Scheme Shell (scsh), for
example, takes on a similar problem, but the abstraction is different;
less focused on inputs and outputs and instead more geared to
integrating Shell script idioms with plain Scheme.
Personally, I find the GWL too complex for mere process abstractions and
lacking in features that are common in Shell scripts. Notably, it punts
on improving the syntax of the command; it shrugs and just uses a string
to express the whole command (with a little variable interpolation).
Perhaps there is space for a different tool that takes lessons from the
GWL and Scsh alike, with a focus on command composition and shell
abstractions. Perhaps that tool already exists and is called Metabash:
https://github.com/artyom-poptsov/metabash
:)
--
Ricardo