On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Maor Meir wrote:
> A revised draft. spelling errors corrected, shlomi's explanation
> on syntax was fit in, a note on info was added at the end.
the term 'time-stamp' might be unknown to people - perhaps add an
explanation in pharantases, e.g.: .... time-stamps (time of last
modification of the file)
the term 'dependencies' will definately be unclear - this is
makefiles-speak. perhaps you should remove the part about 'gcc -M'
altogether - i'm not sure how easy you'll find explaining what it does, in
a clear manner, in the time frame you have. and since you're not showing
how this output can be used, it is rather pointless. on small projects,
people are able to maintain the dependency list manually.
i would add a log of a session showing how the makefile works, since only
that'll make it clear to many people. an example session would show:
(starting in a directory containing only the sources):
- optional: ls [to show there are only sources]
- make
[output of a complete make here].
- optional: ls [to show the files that were created].
- edit one .c source (just show the 'emacs foo.c' command).
- make
[output showing only foo.o is rebuild and a relink is performed]
- edit one .h source
- make
[output showing the two .c files that include this source, are rebuilt].
- make clean
[output of make clean].
- optional: ls [to show that only sources remain while the rest was
deleted].
most people don't have such developed recursive thinking, and this
demonstration will help them grasp the idea better. i remember how hard
recursive thinking was for me when i was a 1st-year student...
> As for being too terse, I think the slides should be brief
> and to the point. These are to be lecture slides not a tutorial.
> They will be acompanied with explanations and a demonstaration obviously.
fair enough - i'm arguing about the level of terseness ;)
> I don't think I want to try ant teach makefiles with an example
> much more comlicated than the one I showed, even though
> obviously with an example this short it might not make sense to
> use variables and such.
it always makes sense using variables, even if only to make the makefile
more a-estetic ;)
also, $(PROG) is clearer then 'bar' (who would know that 'bar' is the name
of an executeable file?).
> I considred writing an example which required compile comands other
> than gcc, but concluded it will just confuse people, and require
> explaning some other tool.
you're absolutely right about this.
--
guy
"For world domination - press 1,
or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://www.haifux.org)
To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
