5 ms·

I suggest to read more about Shake before dismissing it. The paper is short and easy to follow. Shake solves real world problems that go ignored in other system

by cm3 11y ago

I suggest to read more about Shake before dismissing it. The paper is short and easy to follow. Shake solves real world problems that go ignored in other systems. If needed, one could add a simple mode via an EDSL, but so far nobody using Shake has requested such a things from what I can tell, but Neil would be better equipped to answer that. I haven't written a single Shakefile with unicode, and no you don't have to, but apparently you can, if you prefer to. As a start I'd suggest to read "Shake before building".

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
CJefferson 11y ago
I did read all of that. To me, the system seems inferior to tup, which they discuss (tup doesn't require me to specify dependencies, which I consider a killer feature). Also, tup works on windows, while that paper suggests Shake doesn't.
- cm3 11y ago
  I didn't try tup, but I found the way it's said to detect dependencies by monitoring stuff to be a bad idea, though this is probably my personal preference. Can't tell how many developers don't like that design aspect. Shake should work on Windows, given that Neil wrote a Windows progress bar tool for Shake.
  - CJefferson 11y ago
    If you don't like auto-tracking dependencies, then tup certainly isn't for you. For me, it is a killer feature -- any system where dependencies are maintained manually inevitably gets out of sync with the code. Some systems have special compiler hacks (like gcc's -MM flag), but you still have to find the magic option for each program you use, and link them into your compiler. That's also very hard to do in dynamic languages, where you don't know what libraries you have loaded until you've run the program.
    - cm3 11y ago
      > If you don't like auto-tracking dependencies, then tup certainly isn't for you. I do use auto-generated/-detected deps for build time dependency graphs, but I didn't like how tup implements it.

by cm3 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

CJefferson 11y ago

I did read all of that. To me, the system seems inferior to tup, which they discuss (tup doesn't require me to specify dependencies, which I consider a killer feature). Also, tup works on windows, while that paper suggests Shake doesn't.

cm3 11y ago
I didn't try tup, but I found the way it's said to detect dependencies by monitoring stuff to be a bad idea, though this is probably my personal preference. Can't tell how many developers don't like that design aspect. Shake should work on Windows, given that Neil wrote a Windows progress bar tool for Shake.
- CJefferson 11y ago
  If you don't like auto-tracking dependencies, then tup certainly isn't for you. For me, it is a killer feature -- any system where dependencies are maintained manually inevitably gets out of sync with the code. Some systems have special compiler hacks (like gcc's -MM flag), but you still have to find the magic option for each program you use, and link them into your compiler. That's also very hard to do in dynamic languages, where you don't know what libraries you have loaded until you've run the program.
  - cm3 11y ago
    > If you don't like auto-tracking dependencies, then tup certainly isn't for you. I do use auto-generated/-detected deps for build time dependency graphs, but I didn't like how tup implements it.