Our great sponsors
| shake | gitHUD | |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | 0 | |
| 754 | 70 | |
| - | - | |
| 6.7 | 4.8 | |
| 3 months ago | 5 months ago | |
| Haskell | HTML | |
| BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
shake
-
Ninja is enough build system
Another interesting implementation is Shake: https://shakebuild.com/
It is technically a Haskell DSL, but supports Ninja files, time estimates and has tools for linting and profiling.
-
Buck2: Our open source build system
They explicitly refer to Shake build system and Build Systems a la Carte paper.
-
Straightforward Makefile Tutorial that bring together best practices once and for all.
The one paper that gave me hope about build systems was Build systems à la carte: Theory and practice, by Andrey Mokhov, Neil Mitchell, and Simon Peyton Jones. Among other things, it describes the theoretical underpinnings of the Shake build system. To be honest I believe any build system that ignores the maths described in this paper can safely be ignored. (You may however ignore the paper itself if the maths checks out. See Daniel J. Bernstein's redo, which matches Shake very closely.)
-
Worst language you ever used? Really used not just looked at the manual.
Yeah, they don't have to be terrible. I haven't used it, but people in my circles tend to really like Shake, which uses a Haskell embedded DSL to describe builds.
-
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the GNU Autotools
You could try Shake. It's a sane build system written by a former co-worker of mine. https://shakebuild.com/
-
Overview of the CMake controversy, and break down the pros and cons of the critical C++ tool.
Shake does require compilation as it's essentially just a Haskell library providing a DSL and it works just fine, I guess in gradle's case it's a thing about Java-typical overengineering and complete blindness to resource usage. Shake's underlying engine can actually go head-to-head with ninja itself when building ninja files.
-
Need recommendations for a dependency-tracking system
Did you look at shake: https://shakebuild.com/ ?
-
Debian Running on Rust Coreutils
https://shakebuild.com/ agrees with you:
> Large build systems written using Shake tend to be significantly simpler, while also running faster. If your project can use a canned build system (e.g. Visual Studio, cabal) do that; if your project is very simple use a Makefile; otherwise use Shake.
For what it's worth, if I remember right, Shake has some support for interpreting Makefiles, too.
> [...] the way more complicated syntax of Shake [...]
For context, Shake uses Haskell syntax, because your 'Shakefile' is just a normal Haskell program that happens to use Shake as a library and then compiles to a bespoke build system.
gitHUD
We haven't tracked posts mentioning gitHUD yet.
Tracking mentions began in Dec 2020.
What are some alternatives?
marvin - The paranoid bot (framework)
flow - :droplet: Write more understandable Haskell.
shake-language-c - Cross-compilation framework based on the Shake Haskell library.
leksah - Haskell IDE
hpack-convert - hpack-convert: Convert Cabal manifests into hpack's package.yamls
bumper - Haskell tool to automatically bump package versions transitively.
clone-all - clone all the github repositories of a particular user.
shake-cabal-build - Script for running Shake build systems using the Cabal infrastructure (deprecated)
hdocs - Haskell docs tool
curryrs - Bridge the gap between Haskell and Rust
file-location - error and debug function for haskell that give file locations
ihaskell - A Haskell kernel for the Jupyter project.