From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,163994d4f34e92d0 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.236.185.226 with SMTP id u62mr12790714yhm.3.1343909905231; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:18:25 -0700 (PDT) X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.116.97 Path: a15ni8156946qag.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.matabio.net!jeffrey.matabio.net!thue.elzevir.fr!nntpfeed.proxad.net!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Vasiliy Molostov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: General purpose build tools (was: Re: how to tell gnatmake to send executables to a different directory when compiling multi source?) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:39:12 +0400 Organization: None Message-ID: References: <40c4f461-86cf-4b75-9a47-8ec6509d60d4@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: Xw13RWgh8yxgPSv0x3+H9w.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-07-30T16:39:12+04:00 List-Id: Ludovic Brenta =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB= (=D0=B0) =D0=B2 =D1=81=D0=B2=D0=BE=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C=D0= =BC=D0=B5 Mon, = 30 Jul 2012 15:10:27 +0400: >>> [1]: http://omake.metaprl.org/index.html >>> [2]: http://makepp.sourceforge.net/ >>> [3]: http://www.scons.org/ >> >> Good set of links, the question is why these are not so widely used i= n >> comparison to simple make? > > make is anything but simple. In general it is the same as any other tool like awk. It is still possib= le = to use it for large project but the fact is that the convenience of that build system is held entirely = on = implementer/developer's conscience. > The reasons why the better tools are not used more widely are the same= > as the reasons why the better languages are not used more widely: > > - inertia. > - ignorance. > - lemming mentality. The answer here is the cost of the effort. Experienced people does not = insist on rewriting makefiles since they get what they awaiting from it, and nothing more, rewriting lead to= = expense of developer attention and its time, and possibly involves new bugs and mistakes, those can issue in more tim= e = and attention expense and which spending is not the goal of the development, in most cases. > Sometimes inertia is a valid reason; it does not always make sense to > rewrite massive makefiles, even when they are recursive and bug-ridden= , > because effort is better spent in other areas. One example of this is= > GCC. I name it conservative approach. No place for vogue rave in this field. And consider, that it is not a devil. Warrior spelling against devils - = it = is not the face of Ada approach, since such spelling is a way to hide own eyes, while existing things = indeed just need attention more than we want to pay. -- = =D0=9D=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=B2 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D1=87= =D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=BC =D0=BA=D0=BB=D0=B8=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=82=D0=B5= =D0=B1=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=83=D0=B7=D0=B5=D1=80=D0=B0 Opera: http://www.oper= a.com/mail/