Re: [scons-devel] SCons BOF at O'Reilly OSCon 2003

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-17 11:19:09

Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [2003-06-17] David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Perhaps at this point, since it is far of, and I think other design
> changes
>>> are on the table...
>>>
>>> Would using some other scripting language be an option? Like Lua which
> has a
>>> very low embedding cost.
>>
>>I'd much rather be using Python since I know that Scons is
>>thoughtfully designed and implemented. I don't want to repeat the
>>work they've done.
>
> OK. Question though, how easy is it to create those prebuilt binaries that
> got mentioned earlier?

Oh, embedding Python is really easy. Remember, I did write a library
for it ;-)

>>> Could we rewrite the parts of Jam that are usefull, like the dependency
>>> engine, in C++ and use them in library form?
>>
>>That very thing is one that I'm most anxious to replace with the
>>Scons work!
>
> OK, bad example on my part ;-) Are there parts of Jam, and which ones, that
> would be usefull?

IMO its only big advantage is the language syntax, and then it's only
an advantage for users but bogs down developers/extenders, and some of
the restrictions like "whitespace before ';'" even bite the
users... so, I guess you can draw your own conclusions ;-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com