4 ms·
Same, except I do not love make. Love did not grow in the three years I have had to use it for C and C++ building and as a command file. I don't understand the
by cassepipe 4y ago
Same, except I do not love make. Love did not grow in the three years I have had to use it for C and C++ building and as a command file.
I don't understand the love. There are so many footguns. Nothing you want from it is easy. `make` experts always tell you that your makefile is wrong even when it does what it is intended to and when you ask to see a good makefile, you're given a document you can barely understand even though you thought you had good `make` knowledge.
Correct handling of header files needs files generated by the compiler the alternative being recompiling everything when you change one header file.
Run
I now use `xmake` for building (found love at last) and basic scripts or `just` for command files
- JohnFen 4y agoI love make, personally, because no other system gives me the level of flexibility and power. I use it for all sorts of things that aren't even building code. > There are so many footguns. That's true. That sorta comes with flexibility and power. > `make` experts always tell you that your makefile is wrong even when it does what it is intended to I wouldn't do this. "If it's stupid and works, it's not stupid." > Correct handling of header files needs files generated by the compiler the alternative being recompiling everything when you change one header file. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y agoI suspect people love the concept of Make, not its implementation, that’s just Stockholm Syndrome after using it for too long. It does fit beautifully into the „everything is a file“ paradigm tho! Never used Xmake, looks nice and clean - the Zig way seems promising as well…