Sean Kelly wrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
David Simcha wrote:
I basically flunked the build processes course and I don't
actually know Make. My success rate compiling software on Linux
is well under 50%. I loved the old make file because it required
no configuration, etc. and everything always worked. My biggest
concern is that, for new school programmers that don't use
makefiles in their own projects and don't know how to fix them if
something goes wrong, the build process needs to Just Work (TM)
without any tweaking. I frankly don't care how messy it is under
the hood.
I agree with everything you say, except the last sentence.
Same. I'd rather have something easily maintainable but verbose vs.
something terse and impenetrable. The problem with the old old
makefile is that any change had to be done in 3 places. I just
couldn't make sense of the new one.
Agreed. The new makefile (written by me) passes perfectly at Don't
Repeat Yourself and can do quite a lot of stuff, but has become very
difficult to look at.
But some pain is gain. That experience led to a better makefile that I
will finalize soon. That is at the same time easy to understand and
non-redundant.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
