[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: scons with toLua++
- From: "Vijay Aswadhati" <wyseman@...>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:30:35 -0800
I don't know what the benefits of scons are either. I have a vague feeling
that it's goals may be similar to that of CMAKE (cmake.org); CMAKE generates
make files (and project files in the case of Windows) using a "simple"
language. It is written in "C++" and is "extensible". The "simple" language
becomes "clumsy" when dealing with non-trivial projects (however, VTK and
several other big projects use this tool to generate native makefiles).
CMAKE is a perfect project for conversion to use Lua for its scripting needs
instead of re-inventing a language. Reading a bit about the tools goal's and
philosophy, I have a feeling that the author MIGHT have chosen Lua, instead
of inventing a "small" language.
Branching CMAKE to use Lua is on my summer project list. If there is
considerable interest "out there", then perhaps we could kick start it
sooner. If anyone is interested, please let me know.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Johann
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:08 PM
To: Lua list
Subject: Re: scons with toLua++
On Mar 25, 2004, at 4:10 PM, Asko Kauppi wrote:
> scons is worth using anyhow, it's a great tool!
I suppose this is a bit off-topic, but I just find scons to be
annoying, as soon as you have to make any adjustments to the build.
For example, I had to alter the linker flags and it took a lot of
poking around in the code to figure out how to do that. If I had a
plain ol' makefile, gnu or not, I could have done it in 30 seconds,
It's unclear to me what the problem is that SCons fixes.