3 ms·

careful, your dinosaur scales are showing. make is so bad you need automake to manage it. there are much better tools. sadly, nothing LCD (least common denomi

careful, your dinosaur scales are showing. make is so bad you need automake to manage it. there are much better tools. sadly, nothing LCD (least common denominator) so as to gain wide traction. That said, for anyone distributing software, shame on them for not packaging their custom build so as to be runnable via ‘make all’ (just using make to drive everything else).

colanderman 9y ago
I've used make for 15 years and never once needed automake. The company I'm currently at uses straight make without problems for a 500 kLOC code base of multiple languages, 3rd-party code, code generators, and unit tests. Our make code totals 1000 lines. I've seen plenty of messes using scons and ant, more so than I've seen with make. Make is a solid tool.
- bitwize 9y ago
  Across multiple operating systems (unix and windows)? Does it fetch and install 3rd party dependencies? Can a noob maintain the makefile without pulling their hair out?
kazinator 9y ago
Make is only bad under the Autotools mess. Every build-related struggle in an open-source project that uses Autotools can be traced to Autotools, not to make. Autotools wasn't invented to overcome deficiencies in make, but deficiencies in C portability across Unix flavors. Those deficiencies are greatly diminished today, both by POSIX standardization, and there being fewer viable surviving Unix variants that anyone cares to build for.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Don't tell them: show them. I've found they get quite a reaction to the mess underneath illustrated by the PHK article below. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257
- colanderman 9y ago
  Exactly. Don't forget `pkg-config` [1], which I've found eliminates most cross-POSIXish-platform linking issues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config

colanderman 9y ago

I've used make for 15 years and never once needed automake. The company I'm currently at uses straight make without problems for a 500 kLOC code base of multiple languages, 3rd-party code, code generators, and unit tests. Our make code totals 1000 lines. I've seen plenty of messes using scons and ant, more so than I've seen with make. Make is a solid tool.

bitwize 9y ago
Across multiple operating systems (unix and windows)? Does it fetch and install 3rd party dependencies? Can a noob maintain the makefile without pulling their hair out?

kazinator 9y ago

Make is only bad under the Autotools mess. Every build-related struggle in an open-source project that uses Autotools can be traced to Autotools, not to make. Autotools wasn't invented to overcome deficiencies in make, but deficiencies in C portability across Unix flavors. Those deficiencies are greatly diminished today, both by POSIX standardization, and there being fewer viable surviving Unix variants that anyone cares to build for.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
Don't tell them: show them. I've found they get quite a reaction to the mess underneath illustrated by the PHK article below. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257
colanderman 9y ago
Exactly. Don't forget `pkg-config` [1], which I've found eliminates most cross-POSIXish-platform linking issues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config