3 ms·
Probably you're referring to: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. But, I'm not being snarky or rude... I'm just not 100% sure he is being sarcastic. Given that Make
by dijit 4y ago
Probably you're referring to:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
But, I'm not being snarky or rude... I'm just not 100% sure he is being sarcastic.
Given that Make is not portable and does not include _any_ tools that it is commonly used to execute, I consider it hugely sarcastic.
However, other lines were true and it sounds like it was written seriously, so, can't tell if sarcasm or not.
- falcolas 4y agoBeing fair, your rant is about autotools and c compilation, not make, so your own post is as equally suspect for being satire.
- dijit 4y agoThere is more to my rant than just autotools and C compilation though, and it applies equally. I went into more detail for you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34319254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34319254 (btw, most of times I've used "Make" has been times where the pain has been done for me or I'm using Python, Go, Docker or in one case: Rust. I have never touched Autotools or C-compilation myself with Make, my arguments have nothing to do with C compilation at all.)
- falcolas 4y agoIf you’re complaining about ./compile or valgrind, you’re soundly in the world of autotools and C compilation. Not make.
- dijit 4y agoThese are just examples of poor portability (thus workarounds) and tools that are not installed when you run `make` as the GP suggested, the claim was that you could write a make file and kinda not have to worry about anything else. Not the case. I could just as easily talk about the pathing issues between MacOS and Linux: or the multiplicity of issues surrounding `sed` (GNU) and `sed` (BSD), or that the `black` python formatter won't be installed by default. It is not as easy as the author claimed, you need whatever dependencies you call on, obviously.
- canadianfella 4y ago[dead]