On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
>> Sylvain BERTRAND <sylware_AT_legeek.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
>>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to
>>> minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for
>>> small project SDKs, period.
>>
>> The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building more
>> or less complex software-projects.
This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned!
>> Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a
>> makefile to accomodate to common practice.
Install windows and visual studio then. Subscribe to msdn. That
argument is invalid. Don't accept "common" practice blindly like
a "fanatic" :).
>> I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really
>> stupid and a waste of time to do it.
Then, you'll think I'm stupid, and I'll think you are stupid.
Welcome in the human world.
>> If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start
>> ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades.
You are making me say things I didn't. I'm not ranting about
make. I'm talking about what I think is make misuse.
Make is perfectly justified where a full build time is
"too long".
Oh! "writing portable makefile" did pop up. Could you explain
me why it relates to this topic?
--
Sylvain
Received on Wed Jun 25 2014 - 17:03:28 CEST