Re: Missing alternative: OMake.
Indeed, this is an entry worth mentioning. Interesting design and interesting set of features.
Thanks, Aleksey. I'm afraid that OCAML is a bit of a barrier for the masses.
Re: Make Alternatives: Rake/Rant
> One that really needs to be mentioned is Rake,
I've tried out rake. And at that time (2005) I largely
preferred SCons to rake. The main reason
was that more was available out of the box.
Also the SCons distribution named 'scons-local'
was very well matching our setup.
Anyway, it is good to notice that both rake and SCons
are targeted more at the release engineer. Meaning
somebody whos job is to design, implement and maintain
build description. For that role the powerful syntax
(Ruby or Python) and their standard libraries readily
available really shine. For the casual developer,
these same things may be real disadvantages
(significant leaning curve). He never invents
new kind of build steps, never designs new builds.
It doesn't matter to him that the string manipulation
is much better in Ruby (or Python) than with 'make'
if he is completely new to Rudy (or Python).
Sharp contrast with the closely-build-involved
developer, who will instantly fall in love...
Still, let's not forget that "the power of the Ruby
(or Python) programming language at your disposal"
is largely irrelevant to a lot of developers.
They just "add to the build" once in a while
and that is just "copy, paste, change-a-name, run".
> and it's high-powered cousin, Rant.
What a pleasant discovery. I didn't know
about this one and it looks like I will like it.
So rant (http://rant.rubyforge.org/) has all the features of modern build tools:
content signatures, integrated implicit dependencies
checker, end-to-end builds (from generating sources
to making the deployment package).
It also have less frequently seen features: an
outstanding approach to bootstrapping, support
for C# builds, etc.
Too bad that the last update is about 1 year old.