[Python-ideas] Rewriting the build system (part 2)

[Andrew Barnert]

On Mar 19, 2015, at 4:12 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Florian Bruhin <me at the-compiler.org> wrote:
>> * anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> [2015-03-18 10:21:46 +0300]:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Ryan Gonzalez <rymg19 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> But to miss-paraphrase Winston Churchill [1]:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Autotools is the worst build system except for all the others."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there really something better out there?
>>>> 
>>>> Fbuild, Waf, Meson, GN, Boost.Build, Tundra, Bam, ...
>>> 
>>> Is there anything Javascriptey? Python needs to move to web. I heard
>>> something about Grunt, which was replaced by Gulp, but no idea if they
>>> really mature enough to include "system features detection" and "user
>>> configured builds" (or work with C/C++ compilers at all).
>> 
>> What does "Python needs to move to web" to do with it's build system
>> being "Javascriptey"?
> 
> Because things like Twisted are de-facto standard in JavaScript world
> (Node.js), and Python will benefit more if people look for how things are
> implemented in non-C worlds.

Is this a sarcastic comment?

Or are you seriously suggesting that because people use things like the stdlib's asyncio, gevent, Tornado, etc. in Python, which have different paradigms than Twisted, the one Node copied, we need to force some other part of Python to be more like Node in some other way, because "move to the web" means "be more like the latest (but nowhere near most popular) framework for building web services"?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Node implemented in C, with a build system in C and Python? So if we really want to be more like Node for some reason, we should make the build system Pythony instead of Javascripty?