Re:Why Not Make?
by AndrewGaspar on Thursday November 08, 2018 @09:52AM
(#18406574)
Make may be simple, but most real world uses of Make I've seen are NOT simple. The primary benefit of CMake is it imposes a modicum more consistency on the build system. I'll admit CMake still has this problem, though, due to how flexible it is.
I would certainly use a mostly-compatible Make extension/reimplementation. The issues I have with Make are very minor: the syntax clashes between indentation and condition blocks, better built-in functions for string parsing, correct handling for filenames with spaces, a cleanup of built-in targets, etc.
it's not standard at all. what parts of make are the GNU extensions? What parts are you building with bash that aren't portable to windows, or even other nix machines that only have posix sh?
BuildInfer is not a build-system.
It is a tool to migrate between build-systems.
Re:Why Not Make?
by thomastjeffery on Thursday November 08, 2018 @09:23AM
(#18406420)
I certainly, never, in a million years would use a proprietary build system.
1) It's simple, standard, everywhere, and everyone knows it
2) I haven't seen anything better. Most of the other systems are disastrously complex.
I certainly, never, in a million years would use an untested, untrusted, proprietary build system from a little startup which might go away tomorrow.
I do think there is room for Make 2.0. Not Make reinvented; just cleaned up, better for distributed builds, etc.