Interesting. That looks like—mostly—what I was aiming for. (Though I would prefer lisp to haskell for this application, mainly because of metaprogramming.) H

Interesting. That looks like—mostly—what I was aiming for. (Though I would prefer lisp to haskell for this application, mainly because of metaprogramming.) However, I'm somewhat suspicious of this: > A target is a file we want the build system to produce This is somewhat arbitrary, and shouldn't be mandated by the build system. You say 'the secrets are that you need a more abstract concept of "targets" or "dependencies" that aren't just files', but that doesn't seem to be corroborated? They do show examples of 'phony' targets, but why not simply eliminate the conflation of build targets and files entirely? Phony targets are just a holdover from make. ______________________________________________________ The other reason I would prefer lisp (over haskell) is the lack of 'compile time'. It looks like, with shake, you have to recompile the build file every time you change it? With lisp, loading a file will be pretty much instantaneous.