On 16-Aug-06, 20:23 (CDT), Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main problem with your argument is that you seem to be looking at
> poorly written programs that use autoconf, and jumping to the conclusion
> that autoconf is the reason for the poor programming -- it's not. Bad
> programmers made a hash of it no matter what style of portability they
> choose.
My experience is that *most* autoconf using programs are written in the
"bad" style, because (I assume) a *lot* of people think something along
the lines of "my code is portable because I use autoconf". My *opinion*
is a lot of that is a result of the autoconf documentation and examples.
My additional experience is that debugging and fixing autoconf related
problems is a real pain in the ass. By "autoconf related problems" I
mean things like it suddenly deciding it's running a cross compiler, or
that stdlib.h is missing. A lot of this kind of stuff could be improved
by simply SHOWING ME THE FSCKING ERROR MESSAGES, rather than just
checking the return code and guessing.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
