bksys / scons (Re: win32 port)

[Ralf Habacker]

Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2006 17:40 schrieb Nagy Thomas:
> > > I did, and our requirements (like 'a good
> > > configuration framework') are wanted by many other
> > > people too. Scons is throttled by backward
> > > compatibility, and its (now very low) amount of
> > > developers with commit access.
> >
> > Perhaps we could convince them that breaking
> > backwards compatibility is
> > perhaps the only way to move their project forward?
>
> Try and see.
>
> > Even the oldest of
> > distributions should have python 2.2 and there is a
> > windows version of it. Do
> > we know why they insist on keeping backwards
> > compatibility with python 1.5.2?
>
> Several companies are relying on scons for in-house
> development, as a result not-so-useful features cannot
> be changed or removed. But you should probably ask
> them yourself.
>
> > do you know where the performance problems are?
>
> Too much string manipulation (substitution parsers
> using regexps), discutable design decisions (like
> rescanning everything everytime), little code
> flexibility.

some notes about performance from 
http://scons.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=6450

"It almost feels like maybe I could just redo it in a marginally more
efficient but less hackish language like Java and it'd take less time.
 I could use groovy as the scripting language and keep the "good"
ideas in scons but remove the inefficiency and waste of python (e.g.
less a hashtable for every object). ..."

Ralf 

> > > * the source code of scons must be kept compatable
> >
> > to
> >
> > > python 1.5.2
> >
> > why is this an issue?
>
> Python 1.5.2 is too old, as a result, many features
> found in Python 2.2 have to be reimplemented just for
> scons.
>
> > > * command-line handling is not compatible with
> > > autotools and difficult to fix
> >
> > why does it need to be compatible? scons != automake
>
> I was asked for this:
>  scons --option=35 -t
> as the following is not satisfactory:
>  scons option=35 t=True
>
> > IMHO, the best solution is to fix scons. Then we're
> > not the only ones who gain
> > from the fixes, because if we're having these
> > problems, then others are bound
> > to have them as well.
>
> I agree, just make patches and have them accepted
> first. I have started some experiments that i have to
> finish now.
>
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
> /* Thomas Nagy */
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
> exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. Téléchargez sur
> http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-buildsystem mailing list
> Kde-buildsystem at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem