Re:Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Build Systems (2012)
by majewsky on Sunday January 21, 2018 @11:38AM
(#16198655)
It does not inspire confidence when the first two bulletpoints are already redundant with each other. A tree is literally defined as an acyclic graph.
> All the code you will ever need to compile is written in precisely one language.
And that's why make is still popular. There are a ton of new-fangled build systems that only work with $language_du_jour.
Particularly outrageous is Go, which is supposed to have its own builtin build system with "go install", but each vendoring tool has its own opinion about how to run a build, leading to unnecessary compilation instructions in a README that could just as well be thrown in a Makefile target. I always make sure that my programs build and install cleanly with
Re:Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Build Systems (2012)
by sparkie on Sunday January 21, 2018 @12:43PM
(#16199025)
I wouldn't say the first two are redundant. Trees are directed graphs where each node has at most one parent. Most build systems assume DAGs though, hence the second bullet point.
> All the code you will ever need to compile is written in precisely one language.
And that's why make is still popular. There are a ton of new-fangled build systems that only work with $language_du_jour.
Particularly outrageous is Go, which is supposed to have its own builtin build system with "go install", but each vendoring tool has its own opinion about how to run a build, leading to unnecessary compilation instructions in a README that could just as well be thrown in a Makefile target. I always make sure that my programs build and install cleanly with
regardless of language.