On 04/12/2009 18:41, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Hi Bjoern, *, > > In line with that, why not using autotools? It's ugly, it has many > drawbacks, but it's _the_ standard for FLOSS. Plus, it has excellent > cross-build capabilities, something I consider increasingly > important.
well, we already use autoconf, and imho there is nothing wrong with that. automake mainly lets you write portable makefiles, that work in any POSIX-compliant make. nowadays, that seems pretty useless to me: if you want "make" then just use GNU make, it's portable, and powerful. no need to care about whatever crappy make implementation ships with some ancient OS. also, when i last used it, it seemed to me that automake kind of encourages writing recursive makefiles (i.e. makefiles that invoke make for subdirectories), which is an awful idea (because make needs to stat everything all over again for every invocation); but i am not sure to what extent that is really automake's fault (could you just have a single Makefile.am, or at least one that includes the ones from subdirectories?). but the real problem comes with libtool... on windows. when i last used autotools (which is... 4 years ago), libtool was a shell script some 10.000 lines long. starting a process on that so-called OS takes _ages_, so it is not unsurprising that building C/C++ code on windows with a long shell script is _very_ slow. iirc, on the same hardware it was 5-10 times slower building on windows(mingw/msys) than on linux. oh, and what is libtool's support for MSVC like? does it exist at all? so unless someone proves me wrong here it seems to me that libtool is not really an option. oh, another reason to use automake would be that it nicely wraps libtool, which is then also irrelevant. but on the other hand, autotools indeed make cross compiling very easy. > Or something like cmake, which could give you project > files for common IDEs (see > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/ooo-build/2009-August/000181.html > for some initial attempts)? hmmm... cmake also seemed nice last i looked at it... but regarding IDEs, Bjoern just yesterday tried loading the sw module and the inc directory from the solver into some IDEs... iirc, visual studio parsed the headers for half an hour, and was then unusably slow; netbeans (with some gigabytes of heap) was barely usable. does anybody really use an IDE for developing OOo? from what i know people use text editors, or they use an IDE basically like a text editor. > Cheers, > > -- Thorsten regards, michael -- "Most programming environments are meta-engineered to make typical software easier to write. They should instead be meta-engineered to make incorrect software harder to write." -- Daniel J. Bernstein --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
