Response files

[Walter Bright]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> 'Round here we say "maassa maan tavalla", which is probably something 
> like "When in Rome, do like the Romans do".
> 
> Makefiles aren't just a C(++) thing. Unix has a culture of its own, 
> Windows (I wouldn't say have a culture, but still) does it another way. 
> So do we import the Unix way to Windows or the other way around? I'd go 
> with the Romans in Rome.
> 
> If there were a vote (outside of this NG!!) with D users, probably there 
> are more folks who write in D /and/ in C or another language /on their 
> own/ OS, than folks who write D apps (big enough to need makefiles) for 
> both Windows and Linux.


There is no standard for makefiles, I've run across dozens of different 
make programs that use different syntax and have different extensions. 
So, if you're going to have the same makefile across systems, you have 
to start with finding a make program that is fairly identical across 
those systems.

Then you have the \ vs / problems. Some people assure me that Windows 
now works flawlessly with /, but that simply isn't so. I keep running 
into odd cases where it doesn't, so I don't use / on Windows.

File name case sensitivity differs.

The command line utilities called by makefiles differ in their names, 
switches, and how they work.

.o on Linux, .obj on Windows.

nothing on Linux, .exe on Windows.

.a on Linux, .lib on Windows.

It just goes on and on. You could try and parameterize all of it, but 
then the makefile becomes an inscrutable mess. You could have scripts 
generate makefiles, embed scripts in the makefiles, etc., but is this 
really worthwhile? It's just a makefile. I spend almost zero time on 
them. I like them simple even if that means they're more verbose.