On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> The other popular configure+make replacement is scons. > > I can only give uninformed information (!) here, but in one company I worked > with, the main project decided to switch from scons to cmake due to some huge > performance problems in scons. This was in 2005-2006, though, and I don't know > whether things have changed. They haven't - scons is still slow. Python is not that big, though (from a build POV) ? I would think the bootstrap problem to be much more significant. I don't find the argument "many desktop have already python" very convincing - what if you can't install it, for example ? AFAIK, scons does not run on jython or ironpython. > > If you want to investigate Python-based build systems, there is waf (*), which > apparently started out as a fork of scons (precisely due to the aforementioned > performance problems). Again, I have never tried it. Waf is definitely faster than scons - something like one order of magnitude. I am yet very familiar with waf, but I like what I saw - the architecture is much nicer than scons (waf core amount of code is almost ten times smaller than scons core), but I would not call it a mature project yet. About cmake: I haven't looked at it recently, but I have a bit of hard time believing python requires more from a build system than KDE. The lack of autoheader is not accurate, if only because kde projects have it: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_HowToDoPlatformChecks Whether using it compared to the current system is really a win for python, I have no idea. David
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4