On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 05:41:30 UTC, Jason White wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 13:39:20 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
It would be a worthwhile trade-off, if those were the only two
options available, but they're not. There are multiple build
systems out there that do correct builds whilst being faster
than make. Being faster is easy, because make is incredibly
slow.
I didn't even find out about ninja because I read about it in
a blog post, I actively searched for a make alternative
because I was tired of waiting for it.
Make is certainly not slow for full builds. That is what I was
testing.
I only care about incremental builds. I actually have difficulty
understanding why you tested full builds, they're utterly
uninteresting to me.
A build system can be amazeballs fast, but if you can't rely
on it doing incremental builds correctly in production, then
you're probably doing full builds every single time. Being easy
to use and robust is also pretty important.
I agree, but CMake/ninja, tup, regga/ninja, reggae/binary are all
correct _and_ fast.
Atila
