On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:08:08AM +1200, David Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Michael Forney wrote:
> > … Anyway, I'm a little suprised about the distaste for ninja since
> > it's features are pretty much the same as POSIX make (variable
> > assignments and rule definitions).
>
> I suppose the last half of that sentence outlines the distaste for it;
> maybe it is reinventing the wheel?
It is basically make, but it's proud to be "faster". I don't understand this
"faster" on our super powerfull computers, how could it be significant? Coze
it's just computing dependencies and firing-up some commands.
A good benchmark with significant results would be to compile, for instance, a
massive pile of junk like llvm, with ninja then make... but we cannot, because
last time I checked, cmake(c++) was able to generate a parallel build system
only for ninja and not make.
--
Sylvain
Received on Thu Jul 27 2017 - 11:51:55 CEST