On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 02:04:56AM -0800, Salvador Fandi�o wrote: > well, Module::Build biggest strength is that it?s a pure Perl module > that doesn't depend on an external tool like make but for C/C++ > modules you will need a development environment anyway and using make > is not a problem at all.
In this context, Module::Build's strength is that its not a crufty monster that's being prepped for mothballing. MM is. I really have no desire to add or maintain new functionality to MM. Especially functionality that's missing from Module::Build. Double especially new functionality that has to do with compilers, the most frightening, least documented and least tested part of MM. Unless you want to debug C++ builds on VMS for me? :) I really don't want to open this maintenance can of worms without a really good reason. I'd suggest you have a look at putting the functionality into MB instead. Its really quite a clean architecture. I've found it infinately easier to work with than MM. > Actually, most C/C++ developers should feel more comfortable using > and customizing ExtUtils::MakeMaker/make than Module::Build and not > because EU::MM has been there forever and M::B is new but because > they can look at the generated Makefile and understand it. I've never found the "people can understand Makefiles" argument terribly compelling, even if true. Besides, plain Makefiles aren't portable. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Do not try comedy at home! Milk & Cheese are advanced experts! Attempts at comedy can be dangerously unfunny!
