3 ms·

This is a rather outdated model for languages, for example the .NET CLR, Rust, Go, NodeJS, Python (and I believe the JVM?) all have module semantics or language

by duped 5y ago

This is a rather outdated model for languages, for example the .NET CLR, Rust, Go, NodeJS, Python (and I believe the JVM?) all have module semantics or language specifications that describe how compilation units find each other, and the compiler () is responsible for mapping source files to import statements. The compiler is what is responsible for deciding which file is compiled and how it is configured to do so. () or de facto standard build tool like Cargo But that said the example is a little contrived since you wouldn't use a compile configuration to exclude a source file in most languages that have more flushed out module structures than C

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I am not sure what interpreted languages would have to do with "compilation units", but perhaps I'm missing something. The example comes specifically from the build system for Ardour, where we have hand-written assembler and will incorporate different files into build depending on the target (SIMD) architecture and expected runtime environment. I would not call that contrived. I have no doubt at all that Cargo can handle many, even the majority, of projects of a certain scale. I have very strong doubts that a build system so centered on a particular language and with so many assumptions about how things are written and built can work for all projects. It's a problem when the build system falls down on the most demanding stuff, because it leads to people building "meta-build systems" around it, and we've seen how that turned out in the past.
- duped 5y ago
  Interpreted languages have compilers too, they just emit bytecode or an AST instead of object code. I think you're misunderstanding a lot of what I'm describing, it has nothing to do with Cargo or Rust but the fundamental limitations of C/C++ that explain why dependency management that involves either of them is extremely painful compared to any modern language.

by duped 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I am not sure what interpreted languages would have to do with "compilation units", but perhaps I'm missing something. The example comes specifically from the build system for Ardour, where we have hand-written assembler and will incorporate different files into build depending on the target (SIMD) architecture and expected runtime environment. I would not call that contrived. I have no doubt at all that Cargo can handle many, even the majority, of projects of a certain scale. I have very strong doubts that a build system so centered on a particular language and with so many assumptions about how things are written and built can work for all projects. It's a problem when the build system falls down on the most demanding stuff, because it leads to people building "meta-build systems" around it, and we've seen how that turned out in the past.

duped 5y ago
Interpreted languages have compilers too, they just emit bytecode or an AST instead of object code. I think you're misunderstanding a lot of what I'm describing, it has nothing to do with Cargo or Rust but the fundamental limitations of C/C++ that explain why dependency management that involves either of them is extremely painful compared to any modern language.