"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Leandro Lucarella" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Nick Sabalausky, el 22 de noviembre a las 12:54 me escribiste: >>> "Manfred_Nowak" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>> > Russel Winder wrote: >>> > >>> >> but it has come to the end of its useful life >>> > >>> > why. I ask because I just realized, that llvm still uses it. >>> > >>> >>> Make's in the same boat as C++: Highly significant in the past, and >>> still >>> used because of intertia, but garbage by modern standards. >> >> !? >> >> Generally people that say that is people that don't understand Make. >> > > See, that's a big part of the issue I have with make. I've spent an > enormus amout of time with it and with various documentation for it > (including O'Rielly books), and trying to use it still feels like complete > voodoo. I *don't* understand make despite my many attempts. That's the > problem. Every non-make-based alternative that I've tried, I've understood > just fine. > >> Make is not a build system, make is a unix tool, it does one thing and >> it do it well, and that thing is rebuilding something based on >> dependencies. Usually Make is a tool to use as a building block when you >> need something more complex. >> >> Make is a great tool, just don't ask it to do things it doesn't suppose >> to do. >> > > In other words, it's great as long as you have limited requirements or > like to toss a pile of different programs, likely each with their own DSL, > at a single damn task (project building)...and if you actually understand > it. >
I should apologize to bioinfornatics. He did all the work of making a make-based build system tool for D, and then I take the announcement thread and use it to start bitching about make.
