Make replacement for Erlang - suggestions?

Luke Gorrie <>
Wed Sep 18 13:46:07 CEST 2002


Bengt Kleberg <> writes:

> > From: Per Bergqvist <>                                
> 
> > In most projects I been involded in we have used gmake and stayed with
> > it.                                                                   
> >                          
> > For make replacement I simply ask why ? You can use gmake on every    
> > useable platform on earth, and even windows with cygwin ...           
> 
> i find http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf a good way of opening
> peoples eyes to the fallacy of using (g)make.

I read that paper (Recursive Make Considered Harmful) a ways back and
it didn't make much of an impression. But then I was recently playing
with Ghostscript, which uses non-recursive makefiles (i.e. a
"monolithic" Makefile, modularized with includes), and it's pretty
nice. If you "make" when things are already up-to-date, it just
returns very quickly, rather than taking several seconds and
outputting hundreds of lines like "Entering <subdir>.."

I tried the same approach on my last program that needed makefiles,
and though it performs nicely, I did find it a bugger to code. There
appear to be some tricks, but they don't seem very widely known.

A friend also "ported" a Makefile for a java program of mine into
Ant's XML format, incase anyone's curious you can see the before and
after:

  http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/echidna/echidna/Makefile?rev=1.7&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

  http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/echidna/echidna/build.xml?rev=1.4&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

I'll just say that the XML version is larger (at least in part)
because it is also generating documentation, and let you draw your
own conclusions.

Cheers,
Luke




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list