4 ms·
I've only worked on one project (https://www.dpdk.org/ https://www.dpdk.org/) using meson+ninja. Overall it seems to be an improvement, barring the make idiosyn
by grive 6y ago
I've only worked on one project (https://www.dpdk.org/ https://www.dpdk.org/) using meson+ninja. Overall it seems to be an improvement, barring the make idiosyncrasies that needs to be forgotten.
That being said, if the project had used make properly from the beginning (i.e. avoid recursive calls), it would not have been plagued by such latency for incremental builds. But then, make should not have made it so easy to fall for such mistake.
I'm still not a fan of having two steps (meson + ninja), but I guess it's always needed for multi-platform projects.
I'm wondering if there is a make rewrite project that tried to make the recursive make antipattern less painful? Maybe trying to recognize sub-calls and avoid creating a sub-process? I guess it would take creating a small internal shell with only make as a builtin command...
- jhasse 6y agoThere are other things in make that could be improved. If your rewrite fixes those, too, I'm wondering why not use Ninja at that point?