Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace

Re:Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace by dudus on Friday April 10, 2015 @05:51PM (#9357299)

This has nothing to do with Memoization [1] that Python already have out of the box through `functools.lru_cache` [2]

This is just a very bad naming choice for this library that seems to be an OK alternative to Make.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoization

[2] https://docs.python.org/3/library/functools.html#functools.l...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace by ianbicking on Friday April 10, 2015 @06:29PM (#9357449)

If you think of a build step as a function, taking some files as input (the source) and returning a result (the compiled artifact), then this tool is memoizing the that function.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace by scott_s on Friday April 10, 2015 @10:04PM (#9358112)

Agreed - from the name and the mention of strace, I immediately got how it worked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace by kshitijl on Saturday April 11, 2015 @01:51AM (#9358666)

Did you read the Wikipedia article you link to? This has everything to do with memoizing the result of running compilation programs (function) on input files (arguments).

The "trick" here is using strace to figure out the complete set of inputs to the (assumed to be) idempotent compilation steps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace by zo1 on Saturday April 11, 2015 @05:03AM (#9358924)

So why not MemoizeMake? MakeMemoize? MemoStrace? MemoiStrace?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Memoize – a replacement for make relying on strace by dudus on Saturday April 11, 2015 @08:06AM (#9359201)

That would make more sense. They use memoize they don't provide it, which is what I first thought they did when I read the name. They provide a make alternative.

[ Parent | on HN ]