3 ms·

> Make's approach appears to be to use cryptic flags and settings You already memorize similiar syntax things for other languages. Why is it so hard to accept

> Make's approach appears to be to use cryptic flags and settings You already memorize similiar syntax things for other languages. Why is it so hard to accept in this case? Comparatively there are a lot less of them to remember with make as well. Stop being lazy and read the manual. > and the best case documentation appears to be "have you tried stack overflow?". Make's documentation is fantastic. The manual is very comprehensive and well written. Just because you're too lazy to read a manual doesn't mean there isn't documentation. Go read the documentation for make: https://gnu.org/s/make/manual/ https://gnu.org/s/make/manual/

crdoconnor 9y ago
>You already memorize similiar syntax things for other languages. Yes, and cryptic configuration settings and syntax causes obscure, hard to track down bugs in other languages too. Welcome to programming. I am not saying it isn't a problem elsewhere. I'm saying that if a competing build system manages to do the same things in a less cryptic way then that's a strong point in its favor. Essentially make is a fully fledged stringly typed programming language - it's got conditionals, loops, variables, etc. It just wasn't a fully fledged turing complete programming language that had a lot of thought put in to syntax, usability and readability. By contrast, there are many languages which actually did have a lot of thought put in to those things. Btw, stringly typed is not commonly considered a 'good' thing. >Stop being lazy and read the manual. Did the fact that I commented on its quality make you think that I didn't look at it? Try doing ctrl-F on the manual and searching for ccache and cross compilation - what the OP regarded as two of the most "necessary" features. To be fair, I can find information about these things.... stack overflow has information on them. Also, if you dig deep in to the docs the amount of context given is very thin. Look at section "the two flavors of variable" - it took about 300 words to explain something that could have been illustrated with two simple examples.
- lolikoisuru 9y ago
  >It just wasn't a fully fledged turing complete programming language It is turing complete though.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>You already memorize similiar syntax things for other languages. Yes, and cryptic configuration settings and syntax causes obscure, hard to track down bugs in other languages too. Welcome to programming. I am not saying it isn't a problem elsewhere. I'm saying that if a competing build system manages to do the same things in a less cryptic way then that's a strong point in its favor. Essentially make is a fully fledged stringly typed programming language - it's got conditionals, loops, variables, etc. It just wasn't a fully fledged turing complete programming language that had a lot of thought put in to syntax, usability and readability. By contrast, there are many languages which actually did have a lot of thought put in to those things. Btw, stringly typed is not commonly considered a 'good' thing. >Stop being lazy and read the manual. Did the fact that I commented on its quality make you think that I didn't look at it? Try doing ctrl-F on the manual and searching for ccache and cross compilation - what the OP regarded as two of the most "necessary" features. To be fair, I can find information about these things.... stack overflow has information on them. Also, if you dig deep in to the docs the amount of context given is very thin. Look at section "the two flavors of variable" - it took about 300 words to explain something that could have been illustrated with two simple examples.

lolikoisuru 9y ago
>It just wasn't a fully fledged turing complete programming language It is turing complete though.