/tech/ - Technology★

>>901187 (OP)

non-gnu make

>>901187 (OP)

gnu make

>>901187 (OP)

>What is the best build system?

The absence of one. That is when you don't need one. :^)

If you choose Python, you almost never need any of that shit.

>>901187 (OP)

>What is the best build system?

cargo

>Which build system do you use?

cargo

>>901187 (OP)

cmake

Cmake and I don't use one, I just compile games from github.

>>901214

This. I'd gladly do POSIX make, but doing

obj/%.o: src/%.c | obj/
    $(CC) $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $@

obj/:
    @mkdir obj/

in it is painful. The override keyword is also pretty good, even if I could do without.

A plain makefile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazel_(software)

>>901250

fucking retarded. source tree should just come with an empty file obj/.keep

>>901214

>>901297

Unironically this

>>901342

>>901243

>>901239

>>901215

Kill yourselves

>>901492

That plain make file is going to either A: be using auto tools AKA a disgusting piece of shit, or B: you are going to waste tons of time writing manual library rules for every single system you build on. OR you could use cmake that does it all for you.

>>901496

Only if you have no idea how to write a makefile. Make is guaranteed to work on every GNU system, and it's piss easy to use. Cmake, on the other hand, requires everyone else to have it on their systems, sometimes outrageously so as it can refuse to compile if your version isn't the bleeding edge one. It also requires you to learn yet another system.

>>901509

>Make is guaranteed to work

Did you not read literally anything in the comment?

>>901492

What's wrong with cmake?

>>901516

It was not written by an autistic communist who eats shit off his feet.

>>901513

>doesn't address the other points

And yes, it is indeed guaranteed to work.

>>901516

Not standard, adds yet another build system, yet another shit to learn.

>>901520

>>>/pol/

>>901526

> it is indeed guaranteed to work.

So you actually did totally fail to comprehend anything that was said

>>901526

>>>/lgbt/

>>901527

You said a Makefile was either autogenerated or ugly. I said "only if you do not know how to write them". Looks like someone needs to learn some English.

>>901528

>haha le ur mum gay xDDDD

kys my man

>>901530

>You said a Makefile was either autogenerated or ugly

LOL read it again

>>901530

>furry

>telling someone else to kys

>>901492

stop tripfagging for no fucking reason.

>>901373

That's just a workaround, though. I prefer clean stuff, and if GNU make gives it to me, I'll use it. Same way I use find -print0/xargs -0 in my scripts, since POSIX stupidly allows newlines in filenames.

>>901604

What will you do if I don't stop, m8? Screech at me while downvoting saging threads?

>>901622

>saging is downvoting

you need to go back

Can someone please explain to me (who hasn't written anything that requires complex build systems) why we need build systems more complex than make? I understand that make does automation, so what do those other systems bring to the table?

If it is just being able to automatically locate libraries, I don't think that should be part of the build system, but something the user supplies through options, or through the package manager. Maybe one could have some sort of "counter-make" which knows all the settings and paths on the user side and then calls make with the corresponding options. Like typing

counter-make bin

would then call make

make bin --LDPATH ~/.local/share/bin/my-shitty-libs

or something like that.

>>901642

Well, my question has been answered. If you're triggered, my man, just use the filter option. Surely a le oldfag /b/tard like you knows how to do that.

>>901187 (OP)

shell scripts