3 ms·

I've only used make a very little bit... but pretty much anyone can understand it for basic use. This looks like you're writing source code in another language

by sqldba 8y ago

I've only used make a very little bit... but pretty much anyone can understand it for basic use. This looks like you're writing source code in another language that follows a kind of template, which you then compile and run, and then does stuff and is extremely complicated. Seems like a failure to me? Shouldn't something "better" be equally simple or simpler?

tome 8y ago
It's not basic use that's the problem.
SanityIsRare 8y ago
Please stick to your DBs. Thank you.
fpoling 8y ago
Example from the paper of Makefile code used GHC: $1/$2/build/%.$$($3 _ osuf) : \ $1/$4/%.hs $$(LAX _ DEPS _ FOLLOW) \ $$$$($1 _ $2 _ HC _ DEP) $$($1 _ $2 _ PKGDATA _ DEP) $$(call cmd,$1 _ $2 _ HC) $$($1 _ $2 _ $3 _ ALL _ HC _ OPTS) \ -c $$< -o $$@ \ $$(if $$(ndstring YES,$$($1 _ $2 _ DYNAMIC _ TOO)), \ -dyno $$(addsux .$$(dyn _ osuf),$$(basename $$@)) ) $$(call ohi-sanity-check,$1,$2,$3,$1/$2/build/$$ * ) I suspect it easier to master Haskell than this.
- taeric 8y ago
  This just feels like a bloody straw man, though. Poorly written file in X not as good as well written file in Y. News at 11. :) Substitute "Clever" for "Poorly", if you'd prefer.
  - tome 8y ago
    Would you like to show us a well written version of that rule?
    - taeric 8y ago
      First, I probably couldn't even do a well written version of the rule in any language. :) Not exactly my strength. Second, sometimes the best trick you can do to make a build system cleaner, is to change the system it is building. Though, as I stated elsewhere in this chain. I don't necessary mean to dismiss this effort. Just showing me gymnastics that are required to do something that most people just don't care to do, doesn't endear me to the ill suitability of the context. (Fun metaphor, actually. The fact that my house isn't designed to allow easy gynmastic practices in the living room is not a criticism of the house or of gymnastics. Showing me that a cartwheel will get you hurt there is not really showing me anything relevant.)

by sqldba 8y ago

tome 8y ago

It's not basic use that's the problem.

SanityIsRare 8y ago

Please stick to your DBs. Thank you.

fpoling 8y ago

Example from the paper of Makefile code used GHC: $1/$2/build/%.$$($3 _ osuf) : \ $1/$4/%.hs $$(LAX _ DEPS _ FOLLOW) \ $$$$($1 _ $2 _ HC _ DEP) $$($1 _ $2 _ PKGDATA _ DEP) $$(call cmd,$1 _ $2 _ HC) $$($1 _ $2 _ $3 _ ALL _ HC _ OPTS) \ -c $$< -o $$@ \ $$(if $$(ndstring YES,$$($1 _ $2 _ DYNAMIC _ TOO)), \ -dyno $$(addsux .$$(dyn _ osuf),$$(basename $$@)) ) $$(call ohi-sanity-check,$1,$2,$3,$1/$2/build/$$ * ) I suspect it easier to master Haskell than this.

taeric 8y ago
This just feels like a bloody straw man, though. Poorly written file in X not as good as well written file in Y. News at 11. :) Substitute "Clever" for "Poorly", if you'd prefer.
- tome 8y ago
  Would you like to show us a well written version of that rule?
  - taeric 8y ago
    First, I probably couldn't even do a well written version of the rule in any language. :) Not exactly my strength. Second, sometimes the best trick you can do to make a build system cleaner, is to change the system it is building. Though, as I stated elsewhere in this chain. I don't necessary mean to dismiss this effort. Just showing me gymnastics that are required to do something that most people just don't care to do, doesn't endear me to the ill suitability of the context. (Fun metaphor, actually. The fact that my house isn't designed to allow easy gynmastic practices in the living room is not a criticism of the house or of gymnastics. Showing me that a cartwheel will get you hurt there is not really showing me anything relevant.)