| James Kanze 2007-04-26, 8:03 am |
| On Apr 25, 8:55 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.ws> wrote:
> Jess wrote:
> This is off topic here. Try comp.unix.programmer. I have set followups
> to that NG.
There's nothing particularly Unix about make; it's also the more
or less universal solution under Windows.
On the other hand, of course, it's not particular to C++---I've
used it for C, and Java as well, and I've seen it used for
Fortran. And each make has its own particularities: a makefile
written under Linux generally won't work under Solaris or
Windows. So you really have to find a group specialized in the
make you're using.
[...]
> Basically, what I am trying to say is that basic Makefiles become a
> maintenance nightmare, even for small projects and somthing like MakeXS
> can eliminate alot of hard work.
The real problem with make is that it is so unportable, and that
many implementations (e.g. Solaris make) are pretty primitive.
I use GNU make everywhere, and haven't found it to be the
slightest problem; a typical makefile is only a couple of lines
long, in which you specify the sources, what you want to make
and a couple of important directories, and then include the
global make. The global make takes care of the rest.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
|