Nick Sabalausky wrote:
""Jérôme M. Berger"" <jeber...@free.fr> wrote:
Or use a build system that abstracts all the differences for you. I
use SCons all the time to write software that works on both Linux
and Windows and I have none of the problems you describe:
- SCons is released for both Linux and Windows (and MacOS) and is
the same on all platforms;
- All my file names are in lower case, ever (this has nothing to do
with the make tool btw);
- SCons uses '/' as the path delimiter everywhere and translates
them appropriately;
- In SCons, you only specify the core file name and SCons adds the
required prefix and suffix (eg object => object.o/object.obj,
program => program/program.exe, library => liblibrary.a/library.lib);
- Plus SCons is able to do parallel compilations which make isn't
really (the '-j' option is broken on all the make implementations I
know).
All the complexity and the parametrization is handled internally by
SCons so the "makefiles" are both simple *and* terse ;)
Yea, I was going to mention that, too. As far as I'm concerned "*make" is
the same sort of undead unholy relic as C++. Ie, They've served their use,
but these days they're terrible anachronisms that just need to be allowed to
finally die. SCons absolutely *kills* make, and last I looked, AAP was even
better than SCons (IMO). Not to get into an AAP vs SCons debate or anything,
but my point is, with all the stuff out there that's so much better than
*make, there's really not much reason beyond pure inertia and ignorance of
the alternatives to keep holding onto it.
<half jokingly>
Young people tend to always choose the absolutely best, while older
people value stability and longevity of tools.
So, yesterday the best was SCons, today it's AAP, what's it gonna be
tomorrow? Old people prefer something like make, that's been around for
some time, and which will still be around in the future.
</>
Yes, it's not /the/ best. But then one doesn't have to learn a new
system every six months just "to keep with the best".
