On 26 July 2017 at 09:05, Silvan Jegen <s.je...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org> wrote: >> On 7/25/17, Silvan Jegen <s.je...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org> >>>> Even if you don't care for ninja, it does seem to be gaining >>>> popularity, and I've noticed several projects start switching from >>>> autotools to meson (which outputs ninja), so I thought it would be >>>> good to have a small C implementation. It was also a fun project. >>> >>> I have seen that some of the Wayland projects I care about are working >>> on switching to meson but I did not know that it uses ninja under the >>> hood. >>> >>> Since you seem to have plenty of experience with ninja, do you think >>> it has any advantages over using a Makefile containing 20-50 lines of >>> code? >> >> No, not at all. Definitely use a Makefile for that case. > > That's what I suspected. Not sure it's desirable to ever work on a > codebase big enough to require a build system which uses ninja under > the hood. If I find myself in such a position I will turn to samurai > first.
Out of curiosity, what is the point of a build system like ninja, if the codebase requires to be complex? Isn't the issue to be tackled the codebase complexity then? -Anselm
