4 ms·
I wouldn't consider a home-grown autotools/gcc/valgrind setup to be "simple", especially when it comes to dependency management (assuming you care that dependen
by weberc2 8y ago
I wouldn't consider a home-grown autotools/gcc/valgrind setup to be "simple", especially when it comes to dependency management (assuming you care that dependencies don't conflict and that your code links against the right version of the dependency and deterministic/reproducible builds and so on). If you can afford the personnel to manage all of that, then that's great, but for those of us who can't, it's nice to be able to run `go build` or `go test` with zero configuration.
- rwmj 8y agoWhy would you think OCaml can't do that as well? opam lets you build from source with "zero configuration". We don't use it because we have invested heavily in autotools and want to integrate with many other programming languages, but the option is there.
- weberc2 8y agoI'm a little hazy on the particulars because I never got terribly deep into OCaml and haven't tried it in a while, but IIRC, OPAM is a package manager (and according to https://opam.ocaml.org/doc/Packaging.html https://opam.ocaml.org/doc/Packaging.html, it requires a configuration file). The most popular build system for OCaml is JBuild (or whatever it got renamed to) which also requires a configuration file (formatted as S-expressions to make things more confusing for newcomers) and I think that usually bottoms out in a Makefile to boot (or maybe it's the other way around, and OPAM packages usually call into Make which calls into JBuild?). In any case, it's a far cry from `go build`.