Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #381813
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Build system proposal |
| Date | 2024-02-05 14:42 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87eddrug48.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <upob3d$3n48o$1@dont-email.me> <upoc7q$3n6np$2@dont-email.me> <OmPvN.300512$7sbb.56893@fx16.iad> <87plxbvma6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <upp8b5$3tmdd$1@dont-email.me> |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On 04/02/2024 23:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 04/02/2024 15:39, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> How shall we write a better build system? >>>>> >>>>> Current systems use scripts with ad hoc, weird syntax. They don't work >>>>> consistently across platforms, they break and are hard to fix, and are >>>>> complicated to set up. You even get get one scripting system as a front >>>>> end to another, a sort of admission of failure. >>>>> >>>>> But can we do better? >>>>> >>>>> A scripting language provides loops, conditional branches, and >>>>> subroutine calls. And we've already got a perfecty good language for >>>>> describing that. It is C itself. >>>>> >>>>> So here's the proposal. We implement a C interpreter. >>> >>> This was tried. It's called the c-shell. >> >> csh isn't a C interpreter by any stretch of the imagination! > > No. But the concept of a C interpreter isn't new. Indeed. But C is not a good fit for interpretation, so there are often compromises. > There's one called pico C Yes, and there's tcc's -run option. > which is open source and available to be incorporated. Likewise tcc. So what's wrong (in your opinion) with these two that caused you to suggest implementing another C interpreter? > And a scripting > language is an obvious application for an intepreter. The term "scripting language" is so vague as to be almost useless, but in this context the suggestion seems to be to use C as a language to invoke the commands required to compile and link a C program. But C is very poorly suited to this task. One would end up writing a library of functions to do string manipulation and (unless 'system' was deemed sufficient) program execution. C itself would bring very little to the party and the resulting scripts would be hard to read. -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:39 +0000
Re: Build system proposal bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Build system proposal scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Build system proposal bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 17:15 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 17:40 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-04 23:32 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 23:58 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-05 14:42 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:17 +0000
Re: Build system proposal bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 16:00 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Build system proposal bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 17:39 +0000
Re: Build system proposal "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:13 -0800
Re: Build system proposal Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:41 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 19:14 +0200
Re: Build system proposal David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 20:47 +0100
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:38 -0800
Re: Build system proposal David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 11:10 +0100
Re: Build system proposal Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 23:26 +0200
Re: Build system proposal bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 21:28 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:38 +0000
Re: Build system proposal David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 12:56 +0100
Re: Build system proposal David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 12:47 +0100
Re: Build system proposal Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:34 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:41 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 02:27 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 02:59 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 03:09 +0000
Re: Build system proposal "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 22:33 -0800
Re: Build system proposal "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 22:32 -0800
Re: Build system proposal Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 07:25 +0000
Re: Build system proposal "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:33 -0800
Re: Build system proposal Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 08:20 +0000
Re: Build system proposal Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 08:19 -0800
Re: Build system proposal Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 23:24 -0800
Re: Build system proposal scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-04 16:32 +0000
csiph-web