Makefile experts, unite!

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:

> On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 06:38:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
>>
>>> The selling points, to me, are:
>>> 1) the automatic dependency detection through filesystem hooks
>>> 2) recipes also are dependencies
>>> 3) the genericity/low-level. I believe build systems should let me 
>>> define my own abstractions, instead of trying to define for me what an 
>>> "executable" or a "static library" should be.
>>
>> i'm not that all excited by "1", though. tbh, i prefer simplier things, 
>> like regexp scanning. while regexp scanners may find more dependencies 
>> than there really are, they doesn't require any dirty tricks to work.
>
> I understand your point ; I was explaining to my colleagues yesterday 
> that "1" was a "good step in the wrong direction".
..
> However: "1" is still a "good" step. Compared to where we are now, it's 
> in theory equivalent to perfectly doing regexp/gcc-MM scanning, in a 
> langage agnostic way. It's a net win!

it is still a kludge. and it has a huge chance to stay with us for a very 
long time -- this is what usually happens with kludges. ;-)