On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
That would of course be the clean solution. A build system like ninja just fights the symptoms but I am afraid that is the best that can be done in some cases... Cheers, Silvan
