3 ms·
“If you've used Make, you're used to creating Makefiles. In them, you manually build this immense graph where all of the parts hopefully add up to a working pro
by Arkanosis 12y ago
“If you've used Make, you're used to creating Makefiles. In them, you manually build this immense graph where all of the parts hopefully add up to a working program.”
Actually, I used to generate rules using gcc -MM which does pretty much this: track dependencies in sources files using #include directives.
Nevertheless, I'm happy to see that the idea of automatically handling dependencies is still being worked on. I'd be so happy to trash all this scons config files we have to maintain on a near-daily basis.
- dima55 12y agoI think she's talking about adding link rules based on the #includes. But yeah, you can learn how to use Make, or you can write yet-another replacement tool that other people who never learned to use Make get excited about.
- beagle3 12y agoMost make tools indeed suck, but some don't. And Make itself also sucks -- it was just there first. djb/apenwarr's "redo" is a good make alternative, infinitely simpler and about as capable. tup is a good make alternative, that does away with dependency definitions, recursive makes, etc. It just works and works quickly.