From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA00644; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:59:40 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA00609 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:59:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i868xaco021646 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:59:38 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp210-32.lns2.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.210.32]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i868xUHY075739; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:29:31 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040906010601.GB20406@annexia.org> References: <4139ECD3.1050708@cs.caltech.edu> <001e01c492a6$872c7280$19b0e152@warp> <413A0921.7030607@ntlworld.com> <413A1E89.10806@libertysurf.fr> <1094361655.3352.476.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040906010601.GB20406@annexia.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1094461169.3352.1022.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 06 Sep 2004 18:59:30 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 413C26F8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 2004:99 ocamake:01 marginally:01 scalable:01 python:01 debugging:01 versioning:01 expressive:01 scalable:01 9660:01 glebe:01 05,:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 11:06, Richard Jones wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 03:20:56PM +1000, skaller wrote: > > My personal take is: all 'make' based build systems > > are fundamentally flawed because they're based on > > the wrong concept. > > Can I stand up for 'make' (well, GNU make anyway) and point out > that whatever its philosophical problems, it: > > (a) works No it doesn't. That's the problem. If it really did work, why do imake, omake, ocamake, cake, and many other such derivates exist? It fails to be even marginally scalable -- for any significant project it collapses almost immediately, and these days it fails -- totally and abysmally -- to cope with 99% of all C projects as well -- which is why those projects also use M4, Auto* tools, shell scripts, make templates, Perl or Python, and many other such tools. Extend that to a major system requiring multi-platform support, multiple target kinds (debugging, s tatic/dynamic link ...) multiple developers, versioning, documentation and testing, multiple languages, etc etc and the collapse is total -- the tool becomes an *impediment* to productivity. Mandating that the whole of such a control system be written in Perl plus a small set of external tools is a much better, more expressive and scalable solution. I'm not saying make isn't useful, I'm saying it isn't a general purpose project build tool. It doesn't even come close. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners