4 ms·
I didn't try tup, but I found the way it's said to detect dependencies by monitoring stuff to be a bad idea, though this is probably my personal preference. Can
by cm3 11y ago
I didn't try tup, but I found the way it's said to detect dependencies by monitoring stuff to be a bad idea, though this is probably my personal preference. Can't tell how many developers don't like that design aspect.
Shake should work on Windows, given that Neil wrote a Windows progress bar tool for Shake.
- CJefferson 11y agoIf you don't like auto-tracking dependencies, then tup certainly isn't for you. For me, it is a killer feature -- any system where dependencies are maintained manually inevitably gets out of sync with the code. Some systems have special compiler hacks (like gcc's -MM flag), but you still have to find the magic option for each program you use, and link them into your compiler. That's also very hard to do in dynamic languages, where you don't know what libraries you have loaded until you've run the program.
- cm3 11y ago> If you don't like auto-tracking dependencies, then tup certainly isn't for you. I do use auto-generated/-detected deps for build time dependency graphs, but I didn't like how tup implements it.