On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Pickfire <pickfire_AT_riseup.net> wrote:
> I did a benchmark against tup, make, mk, ninja back then.
> What I learn:
>
> - make is the fastest
> - ninja needs to be run twice
> - tup is slowest (probably didn't use monitor) but easy to write
> - mk is slightly slower than make
>
> Still gnumake is the most used, fast as well.
> I see tup as a good build system but not used by many.
When disclosing benchmark results, it is always in good manner to share:
- The exact method
- The dataset
- The raw numbers
I'm not arguing for or against any tool (I'm yet to try tup or ninja),
but tup's author actually does a "tup vs mordor" benchmark, where he
shows the tool is slower by a constant vs an ideal, hypothetical,
all-knowing, ungodly-optimised build tool.
http://gittup.org/tup/tup_vs_mordor.html
<3,K.
Received on Tue Mar 28 2017 - 20:05:47 CEST