4 ms·
Gnu make build systems can horrible to debug when they get complicated. Cmake or some of the other build systems can generate makefiles in addition of checks ex
by wojciii 7y ago
Gnu make build systems can horrible to debug when they get complicated. Cmake or some of the other build systems can generate makefiles in addition of checks executed prior to building the project which are useful for finding all dependencies. I find it easier to work with cmake than with pure makefiles.
- renox 7y agoThat's funny: I (and several other co-workers) hate cmake but make is OK. Not great but much, much better than cmake..
- wirrbel 7y agoIMHO make is not a great target for code generation. I.e. cmake should probably compile to something like ninja (the way meson does, actually I haven't checked if cmake could potentially compile to ninja). Cmake is a weird tool, it's kind of ok, one can see why it was built, but it is astonishing how little benefit it provides over autoconf+automake as a makefile generator. The thing about pure Makefiles is: they don't scale well. They usually start simple, and with project-growth the accumulate parameters, features and tasks, until they become an unbearable maintenance burden. I remember working on a project where I deleted a Makefile, and rewrote it from scratch, just because it contained the tinkering of about 10 devs, most of which were not actively developing the project anymore. In the end it was a magnitude smaller and faster. But: I am pretty sure it has either grown massively again over time, or it has fallen out of use.