[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: autoconf / automake
- From: Michael Gogins <michael.gogins@...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:37:18 -0400
Your experience with automake and autoconf is quite different from
mine. You may say, "dead simple for ME" to use, but you CANNOT say
"dead simple to use". I have been a professional, employed software
engineer since 1989, and I have used autotools on Windows, Linux, and
Solaris on a variety of C and C++ projects.
Complicating factors for me have been the integration of SWIG into the
build system, Java tools along with C/C++ tools, etc.
Frankly, there is not one build tool that is "dead simple to use." For
me, SCons and CMake have been less difficult to use, and considering
my experience over a variety of projects, I think that would be true
for many people.
I agree that for a project that sticks very close to standards such as
ANSI C, a plain makefile works fine.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Miles Bader <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter DrahoÅ <email@example.com> writes:
>> - Hard to read, write and learn
>> - Generally developer unfriendly
>> - Considered obsolete (most bigger projects switching to CMake, Scons ...)
> Your other points are reasonable to varying degrees, but these are just
> Autoconf and especially automake are dead simple to use, especially for
> simple projects like Lua. ÂAutomake input files are a thing of beauty.
> Insurrection, n. An unsuccessful revolution.
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com