[M3devel] Build Automation

[Jay K]

For what we use it for, Quake is hard to beat.
 
What are you missing in Quake?
 
It falls down only slightly:
   - not as much parallelism as it could have  
   - it is an obscure system, like Modula-3  
   - it is perhaps fairly Modula-3 specific; but it is extensible and we do have C/C++ in their, presumably one could add Java/C# support reasonably easily..
   - doesn't offer building multiple programs/modules in one invocation -- directory traversal; we layer thin scripts over it   
    - the name -- I assume it meant quick make 
 
it wins:
  - integrated with the compiler (this can be viewed as bad too) 
  - declarative (or at least appears so, it is actually clever and imperative, but it is a great facsimile) 
  - presumably efficient -- they actually compile it down to a bytecode internally and execute that!
 - presumably efficient -- underlying native code Modula-3 implementation..if this means anything any longer, so much is written in JavaScript, C#, Java, theoretical efficiencies all over the place and yet most things seem ok
 
 
 - Jay



 
From: dragisha at m3w.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:03:16 +0200
To: dmuysers at hotmail.com
CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
Subject: Re: [M3devel] Build Automation

Gradle is better maven, better ant, better Ivy, etc. It is from/for Java world. 
It integrates other Java ecosystem build tools and extends them. It is written in Groovy, and lots of its "virtue" derives from this fact.
To be useable for us, it probably first needs to integrate quake. Not an easy task, without clear benefits.

--Dragiša Durićdragisha at m3w.org



On Aug 20, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Dirk Muysers wrote:




Is Gradle a better 
quake?

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20130825/a3032715/attachment-0002.html>