Am 05.03.2013 10:41, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
But even when in theory (which I btw don't even want to consider),
you are
equivalent to C in this way, it basically means disabling the unit
system,
and users must start to manual maintain dependencies, and learn to
interpretate cryptic errormessages if an incremental build goes
haywire.
C users and developers are trained in this, and have their
experience in
detangling the web of deps etc, have developed semi-automated
helper tools
etc.
Inflicting this on the Pascal masses is unrealistic and undesirable.
Sticking to the manual build principles because the FPC devels can
handle it
essentially means that nobody else will have parallel builds, or
will resort
to a system of doing full builds only. (but that is throwing away
the big
savings to gain small ones). Something that big C projects resort
to anyway,
I'm told.
And FPC even only in a few critical points.
Manual maintenance is simply too painful (and atypical for modular
languages and
its users).
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could disable
FPC's unit handling and use make -j instead, choosing to pay the
price of difficult maintenance, it might defuse the criticism coming
from certain quarters.
Make can not figure out the dependencies between units by itself as
it would need to parse them.
That's for the user to do, if he thinks he can do a better job than FPC.
In theory you can do it already. Compile each unit with "-Ur" (release
unit) and the compiler will not attempt to recompile such a unit and
prefer to fail. And then you do a compilation run for each unit. Good
luck though for circular dependencies (the legal ones).
Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
