4 ms·
Better is very much in the eye of the beholder. I dislike most build tools, SCons included. I've found them all to be of varying degrees of meh to terrible. Bu
by daenney 11y ago
Better is very much in the eye of the beholder. I dislike most build tools, SCons included. I've found them all to be of varying degrees of meh to terrible.
But since Make is in use in so so many projects having good tutorials and material available is valuably to anyone who ends up needing to contribute to such an (open source) project.
- emsy 11y agoI understand that people need resources to understand the Makefiles of existing projects, but I fear that tutorials might encourage people to use Make in new projects. Yes, I really want to extinguish Make. Other build tools are also "bad" but Make deserves a special place in hell.
- fit2rule 11y agoBeen using Make for decades, I don't see the problem. It works sufficiently well to be in use in a lot of my projects as a comfortable and productive environment. As with all 'tool X must die' conversations, one must always end with the only relevant conclusion that should be made: ymmv.
- Sir_Substance 11y agoIn this case, there are genuinly better options. CMake, for example, is less arcane, and can also generate project files for visual studio. I'd agree that make shouldn't really be the go-to choice for brand new projects. It's limitations can encircle new projects.
- TorKlingberg 11y agoCMake generates makefiles, at least as I have used it, so you need to understand makefiles to debug any build problems.
- Sir_Substance 11y agoIt's true, but it has the benefit that your makefiles are now complient with every other cmake users makefiles, and not special snowflakes. That makes it more likely that someone has already had your problem and posted a turnkey solution.
- fit2rule 11y agoCMake, less arcane? Surely you're jokin.