[erlang-questions] Use of makefiles

Toby Thain toby@REDACTED
Tue Mar 4 19:09:10 CET 2008

On 4-Mar-08, at 11:57 AM, Bengt Kleberg wrote:

> Greetings,
> Is it not also the case that perl is more standard than make?

Is *everyone* supposed to rewrite make in Perl every time they want  
to build something?

> I know very little of perl, but have fought at least 4 different kinds
> of make (files).

The GNU make documentation is really very good. I don't know why  
people rarely refer to it.


> bengt
> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 10:11 -0600, James Hague wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Steve Vinoski <vinoski@REDACTED>  
>> wrote:
>>>  Hi Joe, I agree with you 100%. Give me emacs (with its vast  
>>> emacs-lisp
>>>  extensibility), bash (or ksh), and various UNIX command-line tools,
>>>  which I can combine as I wish using pipes, and keep the visual  
>>> tools
>>>  out of my way (and out of my RAM).
>> I think this discussion has been misinterpreted :)  No one is arguing
>> for IDE-like features over makefiles.
>> I have found that I don't need makefiles for my Erlang projects.  I
>> either recompile the same module repeatedly or I want to rebuild
>> everything.  The former is business as usual.  The latter is easily
>> done with a shell script, Perl script, or short Erlang program.  I  
>> use
>> makefiles infrequently enough that I always forget the syntax and
>> nuances of using them.  But I can bang out a Perl program that does
>> the same thing--even checking file modification dates and so on--in
>> very little time.  It's more flexible than using a makefile, too, and
>> usually ends up being less "code."
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list