-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Wrede wrote:
> 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 somethin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Walter Bright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> tomorro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Wrede wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> 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++.
"Leandro Lucarella" wrote in message
news:20090323192000.ga23...@burns.springfield.home...
> Leandro Lucarella, el 23 de marzo a las 13:31 me escribiste:
>> And guess what? It even support D =)
>> http://waf.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/d/
>
> It looks like AAP support D too =)
> http://www.a-a
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
For what it's worth, most of the D wiki is incredibly out-of-date too.
I just don't think there's enough manpower to go around to maintain
it.
Anyone can update it!
You noticed my co
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth, most of the D wiki is incredibly out-of-date too.
>> I just don't think there's enough manpower to go around to maintain
>> it.
>
> Anyone can update it!
You noticed my comment about "no
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
For what it's worth, most of the D wiki is incredibly out-of-date too.
I just don't think there's enough manpower to go around to maintain
it.
Anyone can update it!
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Georg Wrede escribiste:
So, yesterday the best was SCons, today it's AAP, what's it gonna be tomorrow?
Waf[1]?
...
And guess what? It even support D =)
Oh, ok. And the day after tomorrow?
(Sorry, couldn't resist. :-) )
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>> Leandro Lucarella, el 23 de marzo a las 13:31 me escribiste:
>>>
>>> And guess what? It even support D =)
>>> http://waf.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/d/
>>
>> It looks like AAP support D too =)
>> http://www.a
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Leandro Lucarella, el 23 de marzo a las 13:31 me escribiste:
And guess what? It even support D =)
http://waf.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/d/
It looks like AAP support D too =)
http://www.a-a-p.org/exec/ref-modules.html#id2686506
It's nice new build system support D.
Leandro Lucarella, el 23 de marzo a las 13:31 me escribiste:
> And guess what? It even support D =)
> http://waf.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/d/
It looks like AAP support D too =)
http://www.a-a-p.org/exec/ref-modules.html#id2686506
It's nice new build system support D. It seems that the lack-o
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 21 de marzo a las 20:07 me escribiste:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
.o on Linux, .obj on Windows.
OBJSUFFIX_win32 = .obj
OBJSUFFIX_linux = .o
...
OS = linux
...
... file$(OBJSUFFIX_$(OS)) ...
I hadn't thought of using macros to generate macros. It's a
Georg Wrede, el 22 de marzo a las 17:51 me escribiste:
> So, yesterday the best was SCons, today it's AAP, what's it gonna be
> tomorrow?
Waf[1]?
No, really, I just discover it today =)
What I always hated from scons (and the reason I stopped using it) is it
was *sloow* (I don't know if it
Walter Bright, el 21 de marzo a las 20:07 me escribiste:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>.o on Linux, .obj on Windows.
> >OBJSUFFIX_win32 = .obj
> >OBJSUFFIX_linux = .o
> >...
> >OS = linux
> >...
> >... file$(OBJSUFFIX_$(OS)) ...
>
> I hadn't thought of using macros to generate macros. It's a go
Hello Walter,
I keep seeing that as "AARP", the outfit that has started sending me
letters to get me to sign up :-(
That says nothing. I know of people who get those who can't even vote or
drink yet.
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Heh, very true. Of course, both sides could learn a bit from the other.
Sometimes the newest/fanciest/most-popular has loads of drawbacks that the
kids just don't have the experience to notice, and sometimes those more
experienced end up blinded to things that may very we
Georg Wrede wrote:
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 w
"Georg Wrede" wrote in message
news:gq5mp9$2ht...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> ""Jérôme M. Berger"" wrote:
>>> Or use a build system that abstracts all the differences for you. I
>>> use SCons all the time to write software that works on both Linux
>>> and Windows and I have no
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, I was going to mention that, too. As far as I'm concerned "*make" is
the same sort of undead unholy relic as C++. Ie, They've served their use,
but these days they're terrible anachronisms that ju
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
""Jérôme M. Berger"" wrote:
Or use a build system that abstracts all the differences for you. I
use SCons all the time to write software that works on both Linux
and Windows and I have none of the problems you describe:
- SCons is released for both Linux and Windows (and
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
.o on Linux, .obj on Windows.
OBJSUFFIX_win32 = .obj
OBJSUFFIX_linux = .o
...
OS = linux
...
... file$(OBJSUFFIX_$(OS)) ...
This is so totally neat!
I hadn't thought of using macros to generate macros. It's a good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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 allowe
""Jérôme M. Berger"" wrote in message
news:gq4pop$154...@digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Georg Wrede wrote:
>>> 'Round here we say "maassa maan tavalla", which is probably something
>>> like "When in Rome, do like the Romans do".
>>>
>>> Makefiles aren't just a C(++) thing. Unix has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Walter Bright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> 'Round here we say "maassa maan tavalla", which is probably something
>> like "When in Rome, do like the Romans do".
>>
>> Makefiles aren't just a C(++) thing. Unix has a culture of its own,
>> Windows (I wo
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
.o on Linux, .obj on Windows.
OBJSUFFIX_win32 = .obj
OBJSUFFIX_linux = .o
...
OS = linux
...
... file$(OBJSUFFIX_$(OS)) ...
I hadn't thought of using macros to generate macros. It's a good idea.
I confess I also hadn't until the third iterati
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
.o on Linux, .obj on Windows.
OBJSUFFIX_win32 = .obj
OBJSUFFIX_linux = .o
...
OS = linux
...
... file$(OBJSUFFIX_$(OS)) ...
I hadn't thought of using macros to generate macros. It's a good idea.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
More code in makefiles doesn't necessarily improve things quite a lot.
druntime has a lot of makefiles; apparently every single blessed thing
has a makefile dedicated to it. But that complicates things without
benefit.
In theory, each thing in druntime with a make
Walter Bright wrote:
Georg Wrede wrote:
'Round here we say "maassa maan tavalla", which is probably something
like "When in Rome, do like the Romans do".
Makefiles aren't just a C(++) thing. Unix has a culture of its own,
Windows (I wouldn't say have a culture, but still) does it another
way
Georg Wrede wrote:
'Round here we say "maassa maan tavalla", which is probably something
like "When in Rome, do like the Romans do".
Makefiles aren't just a C(++) thing. Unix has a culture of its own,
Windows (I wouldn't say have a culture, but still) does it another way.
So do we import the
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Frank Benoit wrote:
Because, imagine you set up a build process for your application. Why
should i have to care about that difference in my 'makefile',
'rakefile', ... whatever ?
I use different makefiles for Windows, Linux, and OSX. It's easier
Walter Bright wrote:
Frank Benoit wrote:
Because, imagine you set up a build process for your application. Why
should i have to care about that difference in my 'makefile',
'rakefile', ... whatever ?
I use different makefiles for Windows, Linux, and OSX. It's easier than
tearing my few strand
"Jason House" wrote in message
news:gq2dv9$2vn...@digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Frank Benoit wrote:
>> > DMD 1.041 on windows does support response files, that is a file
>> > containing arguments.
>> > On Linux dmd does not under
Walter Bright schrieb:
> Frank Benoit wrote:
>> Because, imagine you set up a build process for your application. Why
>> should i have to care about that difference in my 'makefile',
>> 'rakefile', ... whatever ?
>
> I use different makefiles for Windows, Linux, and OSX. It's easier than
> tearing
Frank Benoit wrote:
Because, imagine you set up a build process for your application. Why
should i have to care about that difference in my 'makefile',
'rakefile', ... whatever ?
I use different makefiles for Windows, Linux, and OSX. It's easier than
tearing my few strands of hair out trying t
Jason House wrote:
Ick. Why? Command files are hacks for Window's shortcomings. Why
spread such hacks across all platforms? The linux command line is
already well adapted to handle this kind of thing.
gcc already supports it. There's apparently a demand for it.
Frank Benoit Wrote:
[...]
> This seems to be enough, however, 32k/64k are not.
> There is a related bug, because the dmd response file workaround is not
> working with >64k, see http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2705
>
Just out of curiosity: With which kind of project
do you hit this l
Jason House schrieb:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Frank Benoit wrote:
>>> DMD 1.041 on windows does support response files, that is a file
>>> containing arguments.
>>> On Linux dmd does not understand that.
>> The windows response files date back t
Jason House schrieb:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Frank Benoit wrote:
>>> DMD 1.041 on windows does support response files, that is a file
>>> containing arguments.
>>> On Linux dmd does not understand that.
>> The windows response files date back t
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Frank Benoit wrote:
> > DMD 1.041 on windows does support response files, that is a file
> > containing arguments.
> > On Linux dmd does not understand that.
>
> The windows response files date back to the problem DOS/Windows had with
>
Frank Benoit wrote:
DMD 1.041 on windows does support response files, that is a file
containing arguments.
On Linux dmd does not understand that.
The windows response files date back to the problem DOS/Windows had with
only a very short command line length was allowed. So the arguments were
DMD 1.041 on windows does support response files, that is a file
containing arguments.
On Linux dmd does not understand that. Instead a build mechanism needs
to handle dmd in a special way on linux.
cat rsp | xargs dmd
Would be nice, if both can be used in the same way.
41 matches
Mail list logo
