Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

research.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 43 posts

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#2

Post by wrong_variable »

I knew Make was terrible when I was first introduced to it.

This is why I think everyone should learn programming first and linux second - since many linux tools are terrible.

As expressed in the SICP book - the programming language should allow you to build abstractions. Make doesn't at all allow that.

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#3

Post by CJefferson »

Paper title is about yet another build system (this one written in Haskell), to replace Make. While make is awful, Most other build systems I've ever used have ended up being awful in their own way, and have the massive disadvantage that my users probably don't have the CMake 2.8.9.2 that I wrote my build script for.

Also, I find it amusing that they claim Make's language is horrible, when they admit their replacement isn't shorter, I have to learn Haskell to use their system, and it looks like this (random snippet). No better than Make (in my opinion), and further I have to write unicode arrows?

    "∗.o" %> \out → do
    let src = out - "c"

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#4

Post by [deleted] »

CJefferson wrote: post #3

Paper title is about yet another build system (this one written in Haskell), to replace Make. While make is awful, Most other build systems I've ever used have ended up being awful in their own way, and have the massive disadvantage that my users probably don't have the CMake 2.8.9.2 that I wrote my build script for. Also, I find it amusing that they claim Make's language is horrible, when they admit their replacemen…

[deleted]

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#5

Post by [deleted] »

CJefferson wrote: post #3

Paper title is about yet another build system (this one written in Haskell), to replace Make. While make is awful, Most other build systems I've ever used have ended up being awful in their own way, and have the massive disadvantage that my users probably don't have the CMake 2.8.9.2 that I wrote my build script for. Also, I find it amusing that they claim Make's language is horrible, when they admit their replacemen…

[deleted]

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#6

Post by cm3 »

CJefferson wrote: post #3

Paper title is about yet another build system (this one written in Haskell), to replace Make. While make is awful, Most other build systems I've ever used have ended up being awful in their own way, and have the massive disadvantage that my users probably don't have the CMake 2.8.9.2 that I wrote my build script for. Also, I find it amusing that they claim Make's language is horrible, when they admit their replacemen…

I suggest to read more about Shake before dismissing it. The paper is short and easy to follow. Shake solves real world problems that go ignored in other systems. If needed, one could add a simple mode via an EDSL, but so far nobody using Shake has requested such a things from what I can tell, but Neil would be better equipped to answer that. I haven't written a single Shakefile with unicode, and no you don't have to, but apparently you can, if you prefer to.

As a start I'd suggest to read "Shake before building".

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#7

Post by [deleted] »

cm3 wrote: post #6
CJefferson wrote: post #3

Paper title is about yet another build system (this one written in Haskell), to replace Make. While make is awful, Most other build systems I've ever used have ended up being awful in their own way, and have the massive disadvantage that my users probably don't have the CMake 2.8.9.2 that I wrote my build script for. Also, I find it amusing that they claim Make's language is horrible, when they admit their replacemen…

I suggest to read more about Shake before dismissing it. The paper is short and easy to follow. Shake solves real world problems that go ignored in other systems. If needed, one could add a simple mode via an EDSL, but so far nobody using Shake has requested such a things from what I can tell, but Neil would be better equipped to answer that. I haven't written a single Shakefile with unicode, and no you don't have to…

[deleted]

Re: Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]

#9

Post by dietrichepp »

wrong_variable wrote: post #2

I knew Make was terrible when I was first introduced to it. This is why I think everyone should learn programming first and linux second - since many linux tools are terrible. As expressed in the SICP book - the programming language should allow you to build abstractions. Make doesn't at all allow that.

I think you were misinformed about the purpose of Make. It should not be used as a programming language. You can write a short makefile by hand, reasonably, which compiles a few source files, but anything larger should probably be automatically generated by CMake or your own scripts or whatever.

Abstractions are perfectly possible, you just do it in your own script (Python or whatever) and this way you don't have to learn a new language. Ninja is a better alternative to Make, and it is even less expressive (which is one of the reasons why it is better, IMO).

Or in other words, we build abstractions in Make by composing it with other tools, rather than creating a huge monolithic Makefile syntax which can do anything you want.

Post reply on HN