From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-24 17:06:50
From: Jeff Garland
David Abrahams wrote:
JG> Sorry my link wasn't specific enough. The paper at the other end
JG> link describes how and why the X Windows development utilizes
JG> straight to section 2.
I saw that paper, but it lacks specific examples of how anything
complex is accomplished.
JG> I took a really quick look at CONS. My 1st impression is that it
JG> immature. I say that due to the kind of problems I see in the
JG> for the development version. I also don't see anything indicating
JG> "industrial level" experience described. I know IMAKE will work
JG> the projects that have been successful with it.
Would you like to volunteer to put something preliminary together
IMAKE? Then we could evaluate it against other options.
JG> Of course, if someone has
JG> already done some groundwork it is certainly worth looking more
JG> my 10 minute evaluation. In the global scheme of things, some
JG> be put off if they have to learn a new make system, although it
JG> be an improvement in the current state of affairs. When I
JG> I found myself hacking Makefiles to try out parts I was
Yes. As far as I can tell, even a Make expert has to "learn a new
for each new project.
JG> I agree with you about Make in general. It really doesn't
JG> makes things livable. On the large project I mentioned before,
we didn't go
JG> to IMAKE because of portability, we did it because we wanted to
be able to
JG> build the whole thing with a push of a button. If everyone was
JG> their own Makefile strategies it wasn't going to work. At the
same time, we
JG> didn't want a bunch of people developing Makefiles for a living.
JG> a good compromise because it was easy for developers to add new
JG> the make system with minimal hassle and it allowed us to generate
JG> project-wide make files.
Sounds like it has potential, but I need to see more.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk