It was inspired by tools like Maven, SBT, Gradle, Rake, Gulp, Leiningen and others.
Bud is still very much work in progress, but it already knows how to do a number of things. For example, Bud knows how to build itself, download dependencies, publish projects, and generate Visual Studio projects files. More features are outlined at http://bud.urbas.si/Docs/Guide.
I like the sound of this, and its something i might try out... I am using FAKE in the office for automated builds on local desktops... Bud could be a replacement...
Free for personal/noncom/oss, contact for commercial. So probably not.
IMO, this will have to offer super tremendous advantages over MSBuild to have any chance at gaining traction. The latter is free, open source, easy to extend, already fits with ci/cd and is the native build tool for the platform.
Agreed. I saw it, was excited, then saw non-free and immediately disregarded it as practical for work. We're not going to pay for an unproven MSBuild alternative when MSBuild, despite its warts, works fine.
I'm quite prepared to pay for tools that offer a meaningful productivity boost, and while I haven't tried Bud yet, I've had lots of misery with MSBuild and complex builds. I think there is plenty of room in the ms ecosystem for a better build tool, and if it's better enough, I'd be prepared to pay.
I don't think it'd be too hard to make a build tool as much better than msbuild as intellij is better than eclipse.
This whole topic nearly triggered a rant about how badly broken most build is, and how massively it smashes you out of your flow to have an irritating build problem show up. Build problems impact the productivity of every member of your team.
I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best.
Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt).
Anyways, any feedback on this is topic would be very welcome!
Complex answer, but simplified the answer would be yes.
The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar...). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has.
The only limits are those inherent to copyright itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_...), and consumer protection laws. Consumer protection law would be the best guess as to limit what kind of conditions a product has after sale, but so far most legal system has chosen not to do so, and it get even more complex area when the product is given away for free.
15 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 40.6 ms ] threadIt was inspired by tools like Maven, SBT, Gradle, Rake, Gulp, Leiningen and others.
Bud is still very much work in progress, but it already knows how to do a number of things. For example, Bud knows how to build itself, download dependencies, publish projects, and generate Visual Studio projects files. More features are outlined at http://bud.urbas.si/Docs/Guide.
Feel free to give Bud a try. Just follow installation instructions: http://bud.urbas.si/Docs/Guide
Every piece of feedback, technical or otherwise, is very welcome. If you have a feature request or a bug to report, please drop me an email.
Thanks!
I ask this because I find myself preferring you only 'get' the CurrentUser once and use it as required in the following block.
Free for personal/noncom/oss, contact for commercial. So probably not.
IMO, this will have to offer super tremendous advantages over MSBuild to have any chance at gaining traction. The latter is free, open source, easy to extend, already fits with ci/cd and is the native build tool for the platform.
I don't think it'd be too hard to make a build tool as much better than msbuild as intellij is better than eclipse.
This whole topic nearly triggered a rant about how badly broken most build is, and how massively it smashes you out of your flow to have an irritating build problem show up. Build problems impact the productivity of every member of your team.
Bud will always be free for open source projects.
I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best.
Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt).
Anyways, any feedback on this is topic would be very welcome!
Thanks a bunch!
Would this be enforceable, though?
The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar...). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has.
The only limits are those inherent to copyright itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_...), and consumer protection laws. Consumer protection law would be the best guess as to limit what kind of conditions a product has after sale, but so far most legal system has chosen not to do so, and it get even more complex area when the product is given away for free.
I moved bud to a public repository and changed its licence to GPLv3.
Here's the repository: https://github.com/urbas/bud