Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Build tools > mention > msc tools #23

Closed
tomByrer opened this issue Jan 5, 2014 · 15 comments
Closed

Build tools > mention > msc tools #23

tomByrer opened this issue Jan 5, 2014 · 15 comments

Comments

@tomByrer
Copy link

tomByrer commented Jan 5, 2014

Edit:

List of msc tools

fez - JS general purpose build tool based on tup

Static web page builders

roots, docpad, wintersmith, borschik
Mimosa - emphases module loader endgame

Static web server

harp


There are several other tools that should be mentioned, like:

http://roots.cx/

A light, super fast, and intuitive static build system made for front end development and building web apps.
Roots comes in the form of a static site build tool by default, but also includes templates and plugins for express and rails.

On Github: Watch: 42, Star: 784, Closed Issues: 324
Node based, on GitHub for over a year, almost weekly updates, somewhat opinionated it seems. Doesn't seem to have a plug-in system, so the use-cases are narrowed to static sites or SPAs. Enough popularity for a mention IMHO.

@dashed
Copy link

dashed commented Jan 5, 2014

This looks like a static-site generator like docpad or wintersmith than a build system.

@tomByrer
Copy link
Author

tomByrer commented Jan 5, 2014

That is true. Though static web pages & processing code (since many GitHub projects are just JavaScript with perhaps a few assets) are common use cases of all build systems.

@dashed
Copy link

dashed commented Jan 5, 2014

Ah... build tool. I got confused with build system.

I haven't heard of that term before.

If that's the case shouldn't docpad be considered?

/cc @bevry

@tomByrer
Copy link
Author

tomByrer commented Jan 5, 2014

Ah... build tool. I got confused with build system.

I think you brought up a good point; perhaps more emphasis should be on multipurpose tools.
Yes, why not consider, roots, docpad, wintersmith, borschik, etc? I'm still looking for feedback how long to spend on each one.

@dashed
Copy link

dashed commented Jan 5, 2014

@tomByrer are JS based build tools only considered?

It seems that the entire book (from what I see in the TOC) will be about front-end tooling based on JS.

I think this distinction should be noted on the readme.

@addyosmani comments on this?

@tomByrer
Copy link
Author

tomByrer commented Jan 5, 2014

Seems most of the newer front-end tools are Node-based. Ant & make are already slated, I think there may be a Ruby-based system also?

@dashed
Copy link

dashed commented Jan 5, 2014

There are a lot of static-site generators in a variety of languages and most of them can be used as build-tools.

Probably JS and ruby based (maybe even python?) build-tools should be considered. Then from there you can create a shortlist and choose which of those will go into the book.

@sindresorhus
Copy link
Contributor

Should be JS. JS is the front-end, build-systems should be too.

While interesting, we should try to limit our scope, at least in the first version. Should definitely mention it though.

@wilmoore
Copy link
Contributor

wilmoore commented Jan 6, 2014

Probably best to stick to JS build-systems and outside of that, only mention:

  • systems that have a great deal of popularity despite being non-JS (i.e. rake).
  • have significant mindshare due to simplicity and history (i.e. make).
  • have an advantage in being the best tool for the job for simple apps/libs (i.e. make).

@sindresorhus
Copy link
Contributor

yup

@addyosmani
Copy link
Member

Agree. We can always expand our focus in future iterations.

On Monday, 6 January 2014 01:40:44, Sindre Sorhus notifications@github.com
wrote:

yup


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/23#issuecomment-31622314
.

@addyosmani
Copy link
Member

For now we're going to stick to documenting articles for JS build systems. We can always look at adding coverage for miscellaneous build tools in a future version.

@tomByrer
Copy link
Author

tomByrer commented Jan 9, 2014

@addyosmani The alt tools mentioned (roots, docpad, wintersmith, borschik) all run in JS. Did you close because you want no mention of these at all?

@addyosmani
Copy link
Member

Oh not at all! I think we should cover these tools in a future iteration if
there's sufficient interest, but not in the first version.

We have a lot of topics to cover and it would be great to stay focused on a
smaller set and then expand.

On Thursday, 9 January 2014 03:40:50, tomByrer notifications@github.com
wrote:

@addyosmani https://github.com/addyosmani The alt tools mentioned
(roots, docpad, wintersmith, borschik) all run in JS. Did you close because
you want no mention of these at all?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/23#issuecomment-31900358
.

@tomByrer
Copy link
Author

added Mimosa

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants