Make replacement for Erlang - suggestions?

Bengt Kleberg eleberg@REDACTED
Wed Sep 18 16:51:41 CEST 2002

> X-Original-Recipient: eleberg@REDACTED
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:29:33 +0200
> From: Matthias Lang <matthias@REDACTED>

>   - 'make' systems are a very soft target. Lots of strange rules to
>     make them work around all sorts of local problems makes them
>     inherently ugly.

i would take this as a reason to create a new system for building
software. better suited to the task than 'make'.

>   - the author comes from Canberra, which is basically chock-full of
>     people peddling "simple" solutions to complex problems

you are the domain expert here :-)

>   - I can't find any advice on the WWW for "how do I actually make
>     this work"

perhaps this is because most people use recursive make systems. this
fact does not (automatically) make recursive make better.
as a counter example: most people use c(++). most people use windows.

> An example: in the source tree for one of our products, there are at
> least three different ways to turn a .c file into a .o file, depending
> on whether the object code is meant to run on the target board's CPU,
> the DSP or on the build system.
> I currently deal with this by keeping code intended for different
> compilers in different directories. In one Makefile I might have
>   %.o: %.c
>        $(CC)  $(CFLAGS) -c $<
> while in another I might have
>   %.o: %.c
>        $(PPC_CC) $(PPC_CFLAGS) -c $<
> I can't think of a sensible way to do this in a combined makefile,
> with or without include files. Maybe I've missed something obvious.

i would guess that there is nothing wrong with your intellect. more
likely there is a problem with 'make'. perhaps there is a better
solution for building software.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list