News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf] by tome on Saturday April 09, 2016 @05:18PM (#11463384)
It's not just written in Haskell, it is Haskell. Your "Shakefile" is a Haskell source file. You understand the syntax if you understand Haskell syntax, and vice versa.

And no, you don't have to write Unicode arrows. You write those things as ->. For some reason academic Haskell papers use Unicode symbols where real Haskell uses ASCII.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf] by rspeer on Saturday April 09, 2016 @07:04PM (#11463862)
Build systems are a good case for a domain-specific language that just knows about how to build things. Make may not always be the right DSL.

"Here's a Haskell library, go write your own build system in Haskell" is technically a solution to every build problem, but not a very practical one. Especially because Haskell libraries are themselves so hard to build on a fresh system!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf] by tome on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:59AM (#11465585)
Haskell libraries as well-maintained as Shake should not be hard to build on a fresh system (especially nowadays with Stack). Getting GHC onto a fresh system might be difficult if your package manager doesn't provide it.
[ Parent | on HN ]