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 <sylw...@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
