On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 04:04:14PM -0700, Robert Spier wrote: > >Without knowing too much about it, I still have to wonder what is > >wrong with cons? I thought it was a fully functional all-perl make > >replacement. > > One reason not to use cons is that we will have to port it to > parrot/perl6 in order to become self hosting, another, is that it > may not meet all of our needs, especially in trying to do everything > for all platforms. > > One of the keys of the system Jeff has implemented is that it's 100% > real perl code and real perl objects, not a language parsed with > perl. This means you can do nifty things and write perl code to > modify things in a natural way. > > Having said that, if you want to convert the current system to cons, > and submit it, it might get us far enough along for now. > > But, also, having just implemented something very similar to what Jeff > has put together for $DAYJOB, I think there is a lot of power in > having your own system.
I'm not worried about your new make system being a bad idea. I do wonder if it's a wheel that's been invented before, but that's not my real concern. My real concern is that it sounds like this is slowing the introduction of the new assembler, and *that* is blocking much more development right now than the inadequacies of the current makefiles. I'm in full agreement that we need to replace the current dependency system, but I'd rather have a (blessed) assembler to hack on first.
