On Thursday 05 July 2001 15:24, Ed L Cashin wrote:
> Tony Smith <tony / smee.org> writes:
>
> ....
>
> > Why not integrate a decent build tool like Jam
> > (http://www.perforce.com/jam/jam.html) into Ruby directly so that
> >
> > (a) you don't need one of the myriad versions of make(1) on your machine
> > to build an extension.
> >
> > (b) extension developers can just specify their extensions in terms of
> > the libraries and source files involved and let Jam/Ruby take care of the
> > build.
> >
> > (c) You don't need your makefile generator to dance around the
> > differences in the make versions.
>
> Why not?  One reason is simplicity.  Simplicity and consistency is one
> of the reasons ruby is so cool.  Shoving jam or make functionality
> into it would be a mistake.  (Or cdplay functionality for that
> matter!)

Actually I've given this quite a bit more thought and I don't see any reason 
why this functionality couldn't simply be an extension in its own right. Then 
you could simply have an 'extconf.rb' file which invokes the jam extension 
and falls back on 'mkmf' if jam is not available. 

I think that addresses your concerns - no?

> Also, I use GNU make and autoconf heavily and like them.  Like most
> UN*X developers, I have both of them installed and don't feel the need
> for an alternative, jam specifically, which I don't have installed.

I'm also a *nix developer, and I have them installed too. Autoconf is great, 
but Make is not. I'm not suggesting getting rid of autoconf, but make is not 
the best tool for the job at hand.

Tony.
=====================
Tony Smith
tony at smee dot org
=====================