4 ms·

Yes but there is a hundred megabytes of system behind that. Tens of thousands of lines of starlark code, and tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of lines of java

Yes but there is a hundred megabytes of system behind that. Tens of thousands of lines of starlark code, and tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of lines of java code besides. A lot of work goes into those 4 lines. This is evidenced by the simple question of, how do you set up a custom compiler for that code properly? The answer being a couple hundred lines of starlark code, for what in other build systems is effectively `CC=clang` (to be fair bazel allows this but does not support or encourage it, especially for anything besides toy builds). I like Bazel (a lot!) but you are oversimplifying it here.

HereBeBeasties 7y ago
I have to ask, "so what?" Provided the abstraction doesn't leak I really don't care, in the same way that end users of Microsoft Word don't care about the algorithms that kern their text, about how DirectWrite does subpixel rendering, or anything else. Yes, it's all fiercely large and complex. The original user is pointing out that this is all hidden for simple projects, waiting in the wings for when you need it, and therefore doesn't matter.
- SolarNet 7y ago
  Yes but it's minimizing the complexity of the cliff. The original author they were responding to was describing the static/dynamic discrepancy, and how it requires a lot of work. The author I was replying points out how simple the syntax is. But that's missing the point. I provided a direct counter example: Adding a new compiler to bazel is very complicated, and by new compiler I include something as simple as asserting "all of my C++ code is c++17" at a project level is (when done the correct way, and not one of the many hacky prone to failure ways) a 100+ line toolchain definition (because C++17 should be treated as an entirely new compiler from the perspective of bazel; treating it as a command line argument gets you in a bad place where you hit weird errors). To draw an analogy, it's like saying that C++ code like: some_matrix[i, j]; is great syntax and cross platform! When in reality it involves (in user space code) 3 complex classes (at a minimum!), overloading the comma operator(!), implicitly casting from builtin types, and probably hundreds of lines of template code (if you want any sort of extensibility). True it is cross platform and great syntax. But it obfuscates the amount of code and understanding required to do anything but what the most basic syntax allows, for example extending the system in any way.

HereBeBeasties 7y ago

I have to ask, "so what?" Provided the abstraction doesn't leak I really don't care, in the same way that end users of Microsoft Word don't care about the algorithms that kern their text, about how DirectWrite does subpixel rendering, or anything else. Yes, it's all fiercely large and complex. The original user is pointing out that this is all hidden for simple projects, waiting in the wings for when you need it, and therefore doesn't matter.

SolarNet 7y ago
Yes but it's minimizing the complexity of the cliff. The original author they were responding to was describing the static/dynamic discrepancy, and how it requires a lot of work. The author I was replying points out how simple the syntax is. But that's missing the point. I provided a direct counter example: Adding a new compiler to bazel is very complicated, and by new compiler I include something as simple as asserting "all of my C++ code is c++17" at a project level is (when done the correct way, and not one of the many hacky prone to failure ways) a 100+ line toolchain definition (because C++17 should be treated as an entirely new compiler from the perspective of bazel; treating it as a command line argument gets you in a bad place where you hit weird errors). To draw an analogy, it's like saying that C++ code like: some_matrix[i, j]; is great syntax and cross platform! When in reality it involves (in user space code) 3 complex classes (at a minimum!), overloading the comma operator(!), implicitly casting from builtin types, and probably hundreds of lines of template code (if you want any sort of extensibility). True it is cross platform and great syntax. But it obfuscates the amount of code and understanding required to do anything but what the most basic syntax allows, for example extending the system in any way.