[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: difference betwwen \pad-around and \pad-markup?

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: difference betwwen \pad-around and \pad-markup?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:08:31 -0600

On 8/13/09 5:02 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:01:31PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> [about Makefiles]
>>> Don't waste your time understanding them, as their timelife is now
>>> known to be very limited.
>> Are you sure that SCons is the right choice?  What about cmake?
> I used cmake for a project approximately half the size of
> lilypond, and I don't recommend it.
> The main reason is that there's virtually no documentation -- they
> really push the "free program, sell support" model.  Which is a
> completely fair business model... but it got really annoying to
> continually read "buy our manual for $XY" when I was trying to set
> up the system.  I actually got most of my "how to use cmake" info
> from reading blog posts about the system by random bloggers.  :(
> Their invented macro language isn't _bad_, but it's not very
> flexible.  That's particularly a concern for our build system,
> which involves a huge number of weirdnesses concerning the
> internals reference and the translations.
> If we just had the English texinfo manuals, I might cautiously
> recommend cmake (I got cmake to work with texinfo for Marsyas),
> but as it is, I definitely think cmake would be wrong.
> That said, I'm not certain that SCons is the right choice.  waf
> looks quite interesting, especially since it's 80kb and requires
> no installation.  It's also written in python, so we'd still have
> that flexbility.  However, I'm not certain how mature waf is --
> SCons is definitely used by some big projects.  (so is cmake, I
> must admit)
> Ultimately though, I'm fine with whatever John wants to use.
> ... hey, SCons seems to have a "no installation required" version:
> scons-local.  Ok, that eliminates the main point in favor of waf! :)

Waf appears to be significantly faster than Scons in some benchmarks[1].
Speed of Scons appears to be the major drawback I've found on the web.

I have no real experience with any of these build systems, however.  I did
look at the Scons tutorial a couple of months ago and thought it looked very



> Cheers,
> - Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]