Re: [boost] Announcement: Faber, a new build system based on bjam

On 30.11.2017 07:32, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Hans Dembinski via Boost Sent: 30 November 2017 10:52 To: Stefan Seefeld Cc: Hans Dembinski; boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Announcement: Faber, a new build system based on bjam

...

On 29. Nov 2017, at 14:31, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

...

...

from faber.artefacts.binary import binary

greet = module('greet')

hello = binary('hello', ['hello.cpp', greet.greet])

rule(action('test', '$(>)'), 'test', hello, attrs=notfile|always)

default = hello

(from https://github.com/stefanseefeld/faber/blob/develop/examples/modular/fabscri... https://github.com/stefanseefeld/faber/blob/develop/examples/modular/fabscri...), which uses higher-level artefacts (`binary`, `library`) and doesn't require the user to define his own actions to build. This example remains cryptic.

from faber.artefacts...: artefacts? The term "artefact" is very general and non-descriptive. The first definition provided by Google is essentially "human-made thing". Right, it's what "faber" generates (using the same stem even). :) Fair enough, but it is still not very descriptive. Why use an uncommon latin word if you could use a common word from day-to-day language? The purpose of language is to transmit information, so it is usually a good idea to use common words

On 29.11.2017 07:59, Hans Dembinski wrote: that leave no room for ambiguity.

Ironically, the other meaning of "artefact" is "any error in the *perception or representation of any information*, introduced by the involved equipment or technique(s)" [Wikipedia] I'm with Hans on this.

[...] (Yes, I'm fully aware of the difficulties of defining and establishing terminology. :-) )

But it would be better to call it 'thing' than artefact!

Ah, no. Because with "artefact" I really use the original (etymologic) meaning: something created. Think of yourself as "homo faber" in that ontology :-)

Paul

PS '$(>)' really, really turns me off :-(

Sorry for that. That's a bit of inheritance from bjam, but can easily be changed. Or we could add aliases such as $(in) and (out), or whatever people prefer. I have to admit that I bit frustrated that we spend so much time talking about naming and syntax, rather than the more fundamental stuff like design or functionality. Is that merely because it's easy to find syntax issues, but arguing about design requires more time to understand the thing under review ? I really don't want to get stuck in bikeshed discussions after having spent so much effort on Faber's infrastructure to correct what I perceived as major flaws in b2's design. . :-( Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...