incubator-lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Slow migration to Makefiles
Date Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:22:50 GMT
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Nathan Kurz <nate@verse.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> Hmm, my 2 cents is that it's infinitely simpler to understand a build.xml file (or
better yet a Maven pom.xml :) -- just my opinion people no tomatoes!) than it is to understand
makefiles, or better yet, programs that generate makefiles on the fly, or that generate other
build scripts on the fly etc etc.
>
> I much prefer Make to all alternatives.  Lucy is at base a C project,
> and Make is the standard for C.  Certainly other things can work, but
> most anything else causes me about the same amount of alarm as a
> project that has only a README.doc in Word format.
>

+1. I've worked a lot with ant on the lucene-java project, and it
sucks. in fact all build system suck. its just a matter of what 'sucks
less' for what you are trying to do.

For java, ant sucks less than Make. Especially since there are tools
built around it (including ones distributed with ant) for things like
junit test integration.

I think Make is a better path for a project like Lucy that isn't
java-oriented but more of the unix/C mentality. This is because there
are tools built around Make (including yes, things like autoconf) for
the C environment.

For example: since we have been discussing snowball recently, I had to
add several new languages to a customized snowball build and i found
this to be completely painless with snowball's make build.

I don't think we need to have a "build system war" discussion, since
its like editors, everyone has their own opinions. But how many C
projects do you see using make? Basically all of them.

Mime
View raw message