121–130 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CMake is an abomination
Mind pointing out any constructive arguments against it? I recently switched over from hand-built makefiles to cmake for one of my projects, and it's been a breeze.
The way Make works is very complex with lot of implicit rules, special exceptions, etc. Debugging Makefile is a chore.
If you are bent to use it, two pieces of advice: there is a handy debug flag that will tell you everything make is doing, and do disable all the implicit rules.
Absolutely do not use make for any new project. If you love make, it's a big, red, burning flag that you're not demanding enough of your tools and that you're not keeping up with changes in your ecosystem. There are many, many way better alternatives to make. Which one is better depends on the platform you're on. The majority of them throws in automatic dependency management for free. Yes, I know that the essence of…
To me, blatant avoidance of make is a big, red, burning flag that whoever made that decision values novelty over value and that he's likely to be a bandwagon-jumper or a NIHer in other aspects of his professional life too, and such people are best avoided.
No you shouldn't. I know make inside and out, a result of being stubborn and lazy, and I am positive I can build a better replacement for it in a matter of days. Something like, but more general than, Rake. The way Make works is very complex with lot of implicit rules, special exceptions, etc. Debugging Makefile is a chore. If you are bent to use it, two pieces of advice: there is a handy debug flag that will tell yo…
Then why haven't you?
> Debugging Makefile is a chore.
Debugging make is a breeze. make -rd tells you exactly what make decided to do and why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of "Don't do this" without suggesting alternatives doesn't do anyone much good. If you're on a *nix system, building C/C++ programs (or automating one-off builds like the example), what would you recommend in make's place?
Assuming you're building your own code and are willing to arrange things in a compatible manner, then I have a solution to offer. It figures out the dependencies by reading the source code . You can create objects and binaries just by asking it to build a certain target. I recorded an example of installing and using it here: http://rachelbythebay.com/jvt/view?bb_install You can get a copy for experimentation here: ht…
So you're proposing that people give up screwdrivers because figuring out what bit to use is hard, and that they should instead use your potato peeler, never mind that it doesn't actually drive screws?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, probably not. But I think the metrics you've chosen are irrelevant. Make was not only the best, it was the only player in the game until quite recently, so of course it's ubiquitous. As for expressiveness, yes, it certainly is expressive. It's also very hard to learn and very difficult to maintain. But build systems such as Gradle or SBT, are also incredibly expressive, by virtue of being configurable in actual p…
"But I think the metrics you've chosen are irrelevant." Nothing is more frustrating than discovering that you need to install a new component or build system just to build a specific component. It gets worse when dealing with multiple external components in different build systems. "It's also very hard to learn and very difficult to maintain" I agree insofar as most people go into make without trying to learn it prop…
If you're talking about a FOSS component that random people will have to rebuild: Yes, absolutely. (Go listen to the Linux From Scratch community complain about CMake!)
If you're talking about a proprietary project that will only be distributed as binaries, or maybe even not distributed externally at all, why not pick the best tool for the job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CMake
Personally I'd suggest Premake because it uses Lua instead of rolling its own scripting language. The world would be a better place if we could all agree on one scripting language for stuff like this so no one has to look up the syntax for things like creating arrays for every individual tool. Feature-wise premake isn't entirely caught up to CMake but it has everything important. Also the premake files look a lot cle…
It's called bloody "make". If Prolog is a language, so is make. Make is still a scripting language even if it's not boneheadedly sequential and imperative the way, say, Python is.
Absolutely do not use make for any new project. If you love make, it's a big, red, burning flag that you're not demanding enough of your tools and that you're not keeping up with changes in your ecosystem. There are many, many way better alternatives to make. Which one is better depends on the platform you're on. The majority of them throws in automatic dependency management for free. Yes, I know that the essence of…
I could not disagree with you more strongly. Make is powerful, ubiquitous, and extensible. There's a reason it's stood the test of time. If you must, use something that will generate makefiles for you, like CMake or GNU autotools, but even with these tools, you'll still be using make, and if you understand how make works, you'll be far better equipped to understand the actual operation of your build system. To me, bl…
Microsoft's crazy-ass xml build mechanism is a giant pain in the ass, even compared to their old nmake (I think) tool.
The new system is a great example of a system where someone presumably said "Make is garbage, a big red flag, let's build something better."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CMake is an abomination
Mind pointing out any constructive arguments against it? I recently switched over from hand-built makefiles to cmake for one of my projects, and it's been a breeze.
I get the feeling CMake works fine as long as you color within the lines, but that it's much harder to extend than autotools is.