3 ms·

> I regularly use several different languages, sometimes in the same project, sometimes not. But in all cases, I want to use the same build system in order to

> I regularly use several different languages, sometimes in the same project, sometimes not. But in all cases, I want to use the same build system in order to minimize my environmental complexity. It’s not obvious to me that one can solve the problem of making N languages co-operate by adding another. Why not just use the most powerful language to orchestrate everything? > I don't want to risk version dependencies. I want to be able to use the same build system even when I'm compiling something using an old version of a compiler, and I don't want to be forced into a build system upgrade just because I want to upgrade one of my compilers. That begs the question of whether compiler upgrades should force build system upgrades. In a mature programming language, this should never be the case, although practically speaking it’s definitely possible (e.g. ASDF 3.3, released earlier this year but built on a language which has been static for thirty years, adds compatibility for Allegro Common Lisp!). Incidentally, ASDF is pretty cool: https://asdf.common-lisp.dev/ https://asdf.common-lisp.dev/

JohnFen 3y ago
> Why not just use the most powerful language to orchestrate everything? I usually do everything in a single language, but sometimes that's not the best solution. It's not a matter of how powerful the language is in a general sense, but how good it is at a particular kind of task. But even ignoring my projects that involve multiple languages simultaneously, I still regularly use several languages in total, even if only one per project. So having a build system that's independent of the language is still highly desirable. > That begs the question of whether compiler upgrades should force build system upgrades. My answer to that is "no, never", of course. That leads to increased complexity for me, in exchange for no gain. The build system should have no special knowledge or expectation of what language or language tools are being used.
- eadmund 3y ago
  > But even ignoring my projects that involve multiple languages simultaneously, I still regularly use several languages in total, even if only one per project. So having a build system that's independent of the language is still highly desirable. Ah, that’s a difference between us: I prefer to always use one primary language, and all others are secondary languages selected per-project. So it makes sense for me to just use a system built in my primary choice. > My answer to that is "no, never", of course. Agreed, too! In principle upgrading the compiler should have no effect whatsoever on correct, portable programs. OTOH, there sure do seem to be an awful lot of incorrect and unportable programs out there!

JohnFen 3y ago

> Why not just use the most powerful language to orchestrate everything? I usually do everything in a single language, but sometimes that's not the best solution. It's not a matter of how powerful the language is in a general sense, but how good it is at a particular kind of task. But even ignoring my projects that involve multiple languages simultaneously, I still regularly use several languages in total, even if only one per project. So having a build system that's independent of the language is still highly desirable. > That begs the question of whether compiler upgrades should force build system upgrades. My answer to that is "no, never", of course. That leads to increased complexity for me, in exchange for no gain. The build system should have no special knowledge or expectation of what language or language tools are being used.

eadmund 3y ago
> But even ignoring my projects that involve multiple languages simultaneously, I still regularly use several languages in total, even if only one per project. So having a build system that's independent of the language is still highly desirable. Ah, that’s a difference between us: I prefer to always use one primary language, and all others are secondary languages selected per-project. So it makes sense for me to just use a system built in my primary choice. > My answer to that is "no, never", of course. Agreed, too! In principle upgrading the compiler should have no effect whatsoever on correct, portable programs. OTOH, there sure do seem to be an awful lot of incorrect and unportable programs out there!