3 ms·
How about the importane of your build system lasting for a decade or more? For all the hate about Make, it works just like it used to a decade ago.
by fn-mote 2y ago
How about the importane of your build system lasting for a decade or more?
For all the hate about Make, it works just like it used to a decade ago.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago> Make, it works just like it used to a decade ago. So, not at all for anything not simple. It's not that we all got together one day and said "you know what, (GNU) Make does all what we need, let's build some new, more complex, alternatives". Make is fine, until it isn't, which is a point that's easy to reach with C, C++ and Fortran with modules (so, everything after Fortran 77). And nowadays it's _way_ more homogenous as back in the day when you had all the real Unices with their own compiler and own linker and assembler and way to build and use libraries, in 32 und 64 bit on the same system. Not to forget about the oddball using VMS.
- acuozzo 2y agoIs your deliverable source code or is it a binary? In my experience, Make (and build scripts) work just fine when your deliverable is a binary. You have complete control of the build environment, so hardcoding e.g., /opt/my/cross/compiler or relying on $PATH is a non-issue. However, if your deliverable is source code, then you can only make so many assumptions about the build environment. This is where GNU Autotools and CMake shine.