4 ms·

Never loved make. First used it in the early nineties and found the syntax obscure and error messages cryptic. My response to this article would be, if make i

by JackFr 4y ago

Never loved make. First used it in the early nineties and found the syntax obscure and error messages cryptic. My response to this article would be, if make is so great why did they have to invent 'configure' and 'xmkmf'? And why do people continue to create new build tools every couple of years? Yeah, I mean I guess it worked, but unreasonably effective? Hardly.

jhallenworld 4y ago
Eh, they solve different problems. Make is too simple to customize your build to deal with system differences- it just builds your code.
bch 4y ago
> … why do people continue to create new build tools every couple of years? Seems like a rite[0] of passage to some degree. Perhaps similar to people talking a stab at The Next Actually Correct CMS, and The Next Object System That Doesn’t Suck, or The Next Linux Distro For Smart People. [0] edit: corrected “right V. rite” per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32442473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32442473
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  (btw, it’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_passage)
falcolas 4y ago
> why did they have to invent 'configure' Cross-architecture and linux distro compatibility, mostly.
- compiler-guy 4y ago
  Err, pedantically, configure was not for cross Linux distro compatibility, but for cross unix compatibility. It existed long before Linux was a sparkle in Linus’s eye. And even then, it handled even some non unix environments as well.
  - kkielhofner 4y ago
    GNU autoconf was first released a few months before Linux. Is there some older implementation/standard/practice of ./configure before autoconf?
    - compiler-guy 4y ago
      Autoconf makes it convenient to write configure scripts. Configure scripts existed long before autoconf, but were written piecemeal.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
i've turned to cmake to do some really weird dependency management for various script calling. It's much more scriptable/friendly than make in its modern form but obviously no python :)
proxyon 4y ago
I was waiting for someone to say this. I can't stand make.

by JackFr 4y ago

jhallenworld 4y ago

Eh, they solve different problems. Make is too simple to customize your build to deal with system differences- it just builds your code.

bch 4y ago

> … why do people continue to create new build tools every couple of years? Seems like a rite[0] of passage to some degree. Perhaps similar to people talking a stab at The Next Actually Correct CMS, and The Next Object System That Doesn’t Suck, or The Next Linux Distro For Smart People. [0] edit: corrected “right V. rite” per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32442473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32442473

erik_seaberg 4y ago
(btw, it’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_passage)

falcolas 4y ago

> why did they have to invent 'configure' Cross-architecture and linux distro compatibility, mostly.

compiler-guy 4y ago
Err, pedantically, configure was not for cross Linux distro compatibility, but for cross unix compatibility. It existed long before Linux was a sparkle in Linus’s eye. And even then, it handled even some non unix environments as well.
- kkielhofner 4y ago
  GNU autoconf was first released a few months before Linux. Is there some older implementation/standard/practice of ./configure before autoconf?
  - compiler-guy 4y ago
    Autoconf makes it convenient to write configure scripts. Configure scripts existed long before autoconf, but were written piecemeal.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

i've turned to cmake to do some really weird dependency management for various script calling. It's much more scriptable/friendly than make in its modern form but obviously no python :)

proxyon 4y ago

I was waiting for someone to say this. I can't stand make.