*** Thomas Oltmann [2021-09-07 23:15]: >Nevertheless, these are some of the reasons I care about redo, in no >particular order: [...]
Good points I support too! Also: * The whole redo build system description/rules fits on single screen, like here: http://www.goredo.cypherpunks.ru/Usage-rules.html Compare it to NetBSD bmake (used in FreeBSD) or GNU Make, having an unbelievable size. redo does not even force you to use shell in anyway -- you can use whatever language you wish for * mtime, used in Make, won't work in practice for many possible reasons: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20181113. Make does not give any atomicity in builds. It hard to parallelize and all of us know how often many software can be built only sequentially (however it is related directly to "recursive make considered harfmful" http://www.stargrave.org/recursive_make.pdf). Basically, Make just does not work (reliably) -- Sergey Matveev (http://www.stargrave.org/) OpenPGP: CF60 E89A 5923 1E76 E263 6422 AE1A 8109 E498 57EF
