On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Luca Bruno <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Emmanuel Oga <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Following my experiment in building a vala app with tup [1], here [2]
>> is one for building the same thing with ninja [3]
>>
>> Is not fair to compare ninja and tup solely on grounds of this..., but
>> I think I'm choosing ninja just because it allows me to put the build
>> artifacts in a separate directory to the sources.
>>
>> ninja supports the -j parameter to spawn processes for each build
>> file, by default it spawns 3 processes when dependencies make that
>> possible.
>
>
> Also it supports multiple outputs. Anyway, what made tup really interesting
> was the theory behind it, i.e. the bottom-up build. There isn't much gain in
> choosing ninja over make in my opinion.
>

Agreed, tup is an innovative project, while ninja seems like just a
minimalism, non turing complete replacement for make [1].

In my case the reason is dislike make is basically m4. I find it over
complicated. ninja does not include lots of functionality, and
encourages you to generate the ninja config file using whatever
language you like. Tabs not being significative is a plus.

If I have to choose to write a make file with m4 and generate a ninja
file with ruby, I choose the later. Ok, I could also generate
makefiles using ruby, and then I would end up with a cmake clone. Just
kidding. Even as a target makefiles are orders of magnitude more
complicated than ninja files.

Off course there's a reason so many projects are using make, it is a
great tool. But there's also a reason why so many alternatives where
developed (scons, ant, waf, jam, etc...). make is a bit painful to
use, imho.

1: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/02/ninja.html

> --
> www.debian.org - The Universal Operating System



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
EmmanuelOga.com - Software Developer
_______________________________________________
vala-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list

Reply via email to