Re: RubyGems deciding version formats

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/11/11]

From: Jarkko Hietaniemi
Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats
Date: 14:52 on 11 Nov 2006
Stephen Deken wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke <sorourke@xx.xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ...
>> And yes, it is enormously hateful.  Just be glad people haven't
>> (that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not
>> written in Ruby.
> 
> The name `rake` is just wrong, nomenclature-wise.  It's not related to
> `make` in any way except general function -- the file format is
> different, the actions are different, the intent is different.  Since

I do remember reading somewhere at the end of eighties/beginning
of nineties a document describing a make replacement called "bake"...

> it's bound more tightly to `ruby` than `make`, why not stick with the
> crystal theme and call it something like `lattice` ?
There's stuff above here

Generated at 23:01 on 18 Nov 2006 by mariachi 0.52