C++23: The Next C++ Standard

Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by kazinator on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @07:21PM (#36688496)

Some C++ person recently wrote to the GNU Make mailing list about some grotesque experiments for supporting C++ modules inside GNU Make whereby GNU Make would communicate with some C++ compiler process over sockets and generate dependencies.

Any decent language with modules needs no make utility in the first place. You tell the compiler to build/update the program. The compiler compiles (if necessary) the interface definitions the program references, and in that vein recursively updates the whole tree, compiling anything that has changed; then links the program.

I didn't need any make utility when working with Modula-2 in 1990!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by glouwbug on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @09:48PM (#36689542)

I’ve always wondered why we use make in the first place. Is it really so hard to write a python script that keeps track of file time stamps in a JSON? gcc can even be invoked with certain flags to print header dependencies. Make is crusty, archaic, and over designed

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by Iwan-Zotow on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:30AM (#36690491)

Hello Scons

[ Parent | on HN ]