lolikoisuru

8 ms·

31.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>Make has a fragile syntax that barely works for simple filenames It works perfectly fine with things other than space. >and it has a host of cryptic functions with difficult to understand semantics This is why the GNU Make has a fant
32.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). Do you mean to the shell's command-line parameters or the compiler's? Either way whatever state
33.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>Replace "having start" with "having to start". And maybe replace "solve" with "remove", which might be a better fit here (I'm not a native speaker). The latter half of the sentence is still i
34.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>which I considered inappropriate You never specified what about it is inappropriate. Your complaints about the language amounted at most to a pathetic ad hominem. >As a result you replied in a way that missed any understanding and re
35.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>Your borderline personal attacks (one of which was apparently removed Bitch please. You're the one who started with those.
36.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
Then what was the point of your comment to begin with?
37.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
Is the codebase you're trying to compile available somewhere?
38.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>I very much doubt that torrent client authors consider this to be a vulnerability in their client How could anyone not consider this a vulnerability when it has an actual CVE assigned to it? The discussion in the github issue also shows
39.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
I would like to attempt this even though I'm not the person you're replying to. There is just one problem though, your page isn't loading.
40.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>It just wasn't a fully fledged turing complete programming language It is turing complete though.
41.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
What browser do you use that can't play webm?
42.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
It's out of scope for any general purpose DAG runner. Sure you can make a tool that can do that for language X, but make is used with a lot more than that. Make should not implement parsing of source code to find out what they include
43.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>You mean the one build system that doesn't know the first thing about header files? It's a general purpose DAG runner. It's not really feasible to add parsing for all the different possible languages that one might want t
44.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
> Make's approach appears to be to use cryptic flags and settings You already memorize similiar syntax things for other languages. Why is it so hard to accept in this case? Comparatively there are a lot less of them to remember with
45.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>If it's about making it easy for uninitiated collaborators to add new source files, then the listed build description format is pretty self-explanatory to use. If you write a generic makefile the uninitiated collaborator doesn&#x27
46.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
This is pretty good explanation. https://media.8ch.net/file_dl/25ece2fb253fc4e6cdd3ac4ed99e4f...
47.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>What about: cross compilation? ccache injection? verbose builds? parallelism control? installation prefix? Try being a package maintainer for a GNU/Linux distribution, where all of the above needs to be kept under control. You will
48.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>its configuration syntax is awkward This argument and others similar to it are often repeated but I've yet to see any of those people describe what makes it awkward. >and it is restricted to filesystem files and shell commands I
49.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
And with that goes any chance of me ever even trying slack.
50.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
If I were to write a makefile for something where I can't restrict the filenames beforehand I'd probably just have a target for running `detox` and then at the very end possibly an another target that changes underscores to spaces
51.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
If you’re feeling mischievous, Make has divers ‘secret’ vars & targets for you. For instance, you don’t have to ‘struggle’ w/ the ancient bash, for it’s possible to program recipes in any language that supports evaluations straight
52.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
One thing I sometimes wish was possible in make is using the automatic variables in the dependency part of the rules. The one that I most often have desired to use is $(@D) so I could depend on a file with specific name in the same director
53.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
>When in doubt, don’t google until you read the official manual. It’s a document of an astonishing quality. Go print the pdf. This applies to most GNU software.
54.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
I won't because I'll be dead.
55.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
No. They can't.
56.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
None of these work without binary blobs.
57.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
Here is my embarassing personal website from the 2010s: https://gnu.moe/
58.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
LWN.net It's not a blog or a newsletter but proper journalism and definitely worth the $5/mo I pay for it. I don't think there is any newsletter that just recycles other people's content would be worth the money.
59.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
Python might not be rare but Meson for sure is. Cmake and autotools are very common compared to that.
60.
by lolikoisuru 9y ago
> I could somehow shove a C preprocessor into it and make it automatically generate dependencies based on include directives. But the C compilers already provide tools for example `gcc -MMD`

More ›