3 ms·
I don't think Make is ideal, but: 1) It's simple, standard, everywhere, and everyone knows it 2) I haven't seen anything better. Most of the other systems are
by gibba999 8y ago
I don't think Make is ideal, but:
1) It's simple, standard, everywhere, and everyone knows it
2) I haven't seen anything better. Most of the other systems are disastrously complex.
I certainly, never, in a million years would use an untested, untrusted, proprietary build system from a little startup which might go away tomorrow.
I do think there is room for Make 2.0. Not Make reinvented; just cleaned up, better for distributed builds, etc.
- vortico 8y agoI would certainly use a mostly-compatible Make extension/reimplementation. The issues I have with Make are very minor: the syntax clashes between indentation and condition blocks, better built-in functions for string parsing, correct handling for filenames with spaces, a cleanup of built-in targets, etc.
- thomastjeffery 8y agoI certainly, never, in a million years would use a proprietary build system.
- entelechy 8y agoBuildInfer is not a build-system. It is a tool to migrate between build-systems.
- AndrewGaspar 8y agoMake may be simple, but most real world uses of Make I've seen are NOT simple. The primary benefit of CMake is it imposes a modicum more consistency on the build system. I'll admit CMake still has this problem, though, due to how flexible it is.
- cp9 8y agoit's not standard at all. what parts of make are the GNU extensions? What parts are you building with bash that aren't portable to windows, or even other nix machines that only have posix sh?