3 ms·
Make is a much the lingua franca of build systems as C is for programming, so there's no reason not to provide a (simple) makefile. The alternative they suggest
by astrobe_ 7y ago
Make is a much the lingua franca of build systems as C is for programming, so there's no reason not to provide a (simple) makefile. The alternative they suggest is worse anyway.
- huhtenberg 7y agoWindows is the reason make is not a good choice. Visual Studio is a de-facto standard for Windows development and it's not exactly makefile-oriented. The lowest common denominator for build instructions that works everywhere is literally "set your include paths like so and compile these sources".
- astrobe_ 7y agoHow strange. I have tinkered with a couple of FOSS games of Windows and none of them required VS (not to mention another couple of other non-game projects). Maybe that's because they often are multi-platform projects so Make is the best choice at the global level for them? > The lowest common denominator for build instructions that works everywhere is literally "set your include paths like so and compile these sources". Yes, but that's quite inconvenient and error-prone ; a typo in a -D flag is very likely to not compile what you wanted. Make is not a multi-megabyte program with a frack tonne of dependencies. Having your users to install it in order to build your project is far from being completely outrageous (unless for coughmicrosoftcough cults that consider the command-line is evil).
- diamondo25 7y agoFunny thing is that AtmelStudio (for embedded development of Atmel/Microchip chips) is basically a VisualStudio shell with a makefile generator (built in c#). This is then pushed through make and invokes gcc...
- killmov3s 7y agobuild tools are a mistake in the majority of cases