Build tools > mention > msc tools

[tomByrer]

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]

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

[tomByrer]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

yup

[addyosmani]

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

On Monday, 6 January 2014 01:40:44, Sindre Sorhus [email protected]
wrote:

yup

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

[addyosmani]

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]

@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]

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 [email protected]
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]

added Mimosa