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

Why Use Make

bost.ocks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 248 posts

Re: Why Use Make

#141

Post by sokrates »

quotemstr wrote: post #132
malkia wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make is the assembly/C language of build system. Lots of other systems just generate makefile compatible files (qmake, cmake, premake, others), but often these fall into overly complex traps trying to explain everything both with simple unique words, and then clashing into these. Make is very optimal at the stage it is, everything above or below it it's just not that optimal.

> Make is very optimal at the stage it is, everything above or below it it's just not that optimal. Right: GNU Make is at a local optimum for describing how to generate products based on rules and a dependency graph. I'd also wager it's close to a global optimum. GNU Make is certainly closer to that global optimum than Boost's jam or the countless homegrown XML-based things I've seen over the years --- make is powerf…

If Make is a local optimum and close to a global optimum, it by definition is the global optimum.

Re: Why Use Make

#142

Post by runn1ng »

Make is fine, easy to learn and understand, but not very portable, while Autotools are scary giant monsters left from previous generations.

Re: Why Use Make

#143

Post by Game_Ender »

eckzow wrote: post #96
beagle3 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are on a unix system, "redo" (designed by djb and implemented by apenwarr) is excellent. It's refreshingly simple and robust. And, there's a minimalist version called "do" which is a hundred-or-so lines of shell, that does a complete rebuild (no dependency tracking) - so you can package that with your project, and not have to worry about your users having to install yet another build system. Other alternatives…

For Unix-only and smaller projects another great option is fabricate.py

Thanks for the tip on fabricate, it appears to be just the tool I was looking for. A light weight dependency based "build" system in python that is not focused on distutils or making python packages. We shall see how well it works for data processing.

Re: Why Use Make

#145

Post by Game_Ender »

eliben wrote: post #92
malkia wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make is the assembly/C language of build system. Lots of other systems just generate makefile compatible files (qmake, cmake, premake, others), but often these fall into overly complex traps trying to explain everything both with simple unique words, and then clashing into these. Make is very optimal at the stage it is, everything above or below it it's just not that optimal.

As the assembly language of build systems, I agree that Make works well. But there, IMHO, its utility ends.

I would say if fares rather poorly when you compare it something like ninja (http://martine.github.com/ninja/) which is made to be generated by tools Gyp or CMake. I have used the CMake+ninja combination on large projects and it lives up the hype.

Re: Why Use Make

#146

Post by dllthomas »

sokrates wrote: post #141
quotemstr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make is very optimal at the stage it is, everything above or below it it's just not that optimal. Right: GNU Make is at a local optimum for describing how to generate products based on rules and a dependency graph. I'd also wager it's close to a global optimum. GNU Make is certainly closer to that global optimum than Boost's jam or the countless homegrown XML-based things I've seen over the years --- make is powerf…

If Make is a local optimum and close to a global optimum, it by definition is the global optimum.

Cute, but that depends how close...

Re: Why Use Make

#147

Post by quotemstr »

sokrates wrote: post #141
quotemstr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make is very optimal at the stage it is, everything above or below it it's just not that optimal. Right: GNU Make is at a local optimum for describing how to generate products based on rules and a dependency graph. I'd also wager it's close to a global optimum. GNU Make is certainly closer to that global optimum than Boost's jam or the countless homegrown XML-based things I've seen over the years --- make is powerf…

If Make is a local optimum and close to a global optimum, it by definition is the global optimum.

Say you have a city with two skyscrapers on opposite sides of town, one 49 stories high and the other 51 stories high. When you're at the top of the 49-story building, you're at a local maximum of height and close to the global maximum, but you're not exactly a short gradient-ascent jaunt away from the global maximum.

Re: Why Use Make

#148

Post by atamyrat »

sokrates wrote: post #141
quotemstr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make is very optimal at the stage it is, everything above or below it it's just not that optimal. Right: GNU Make is at a local optimum for describing how to generate products based on rules and a dependency graph. I'd also wager it's close to a global optimum. GNU Make is certainly closer to that global optimum than Boost's jam or the countless homegrown XML-based things I've seen over the years --- make is powerf…

If Make is a local optimum and close to a global optimum, it by definition is the global optimum.

Not really, depends on definition of "close", i.e. how you measure distance. If closeness means distance in search space, then you're right, but it also could mean local vs global are close in value being optimized, but they are located far from each other in search space.

Re: Why Use Make

#149

Post by e40 »

jmhain wrote: post #106
jgrahamc wrote: post #17

If you use GNU Make it's worth using my GNU Make Standard Library: http://gmsl.sourceforge.net/ And also reading everything I wrote as Mr. Make: http://blog.jgc.org/2013/02/updated-list-of-my-gnu-make-arti... Or buy my book: http://www.lulu.com/shop/john-graham-cumming/gnu-make-unleas...

Why does the pdf version cost more than the paperback?

I'd really like an answer to this. It greatly annoys me when I see this type of thing and it always pisses me off so much that I usually forego getting the book. Perhaps I'm over reacting, but to me, it indicates a lack of respect for the audience. Are we so stupid 1) we won't notice, and 2) we can't figure out mailing a physical thing has to have more overhead than the digital copy?
Post reply on HN