<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I tend to use Rebar, it works and I don't think it has ever taken me
more than 5 minutes to setup rebar for a project. <br>
(Generally I just copy my rebar config file from a different
project). As for the paper you mentioned I will admit I am not<br>
enough of an expert on make to comment on the issues it raises, or
even if they are still true 15 years later. <br>
<br>
Rebar is also not that cryptic, it is just a file with some erlang
terms in it that define the build. <br>
<br>
<br>
--Zach<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/3/14, 10:26 AM, Bengt Kleberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1391415978.4825.7.camel@sekic1152.release"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">These are opinions, not facts.
The benefits of Make are mentioned below. Here is a look at a drawback:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/">http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/</a>
(Recursive Make Considered Harmful)
bengt
On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 21:56 +0200, Zachary Kessin wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 1. The tools are, well frankly, garbage. Sorry, in 2014 to be
pushed back to coding with VIM and makefiles is primitive.
Rebar is crytptic and just the pet project of a guy on GIT.
Compared to Gradle, Maven and even (though I don't care for
it much) SBT, rebar is ... lacking. I want to spend time
working on my business logic, not fighting tools. There are
plugins for eclipse and intellij but they have minimal
functionality and i keep reverting back to vim.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Actually the tools are quite good, you are just looking at the wrong
set of tools. Yes Make in one form or another has been around forever
(1977) but to my mind that means that it actually does the job well,
and has had all the weird bugs found and pushed out years ago. It is
quite good at doing the minimal amount of work that is required at any
given time and will use as many cores as you have around. Rebar has a
few weird issues but is generally pretty good.
Most of the hard core Erlang folks seem to use Emacs and many of the
tools are setup to work there.
That being said there are a group of tools that you probably haven't
even looked at that are quite powerful and are worth your time, these
include Dialyzer, Wrangler, PropEr or QuickCheck, and Concuerror.
If you define tools to be a fancy IDE then Erlang is lacking, but if
you define tools as stuff that helps you ship code then Erlang has
some amazing tools.
--
Zachary Kessin
Mostly Erlang Podcast
Skype: zachkessin
Twitter: @zkessin
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Zachary Kessin<br>
<a href="http://mostlyerlang.com">Mostly Erlang Podcast</a><br>
Skype: zachkessin<br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/zkessin">@zkessin</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>