On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Pickfire <pickf...@riseup.net> wrote: > I did a benchmark against tup, make, mk, ninja back then. > What I learn: > > - make is the fastest > - ninja needs to be run twice > - tup is slowest (probably didn't use monitor) but easy to write > - mk is slightly slower than make > > Still gnumake is the most used, fast as well. > I see tup as a good build system but not used by many.
When disclosing benchmark results, it is always in good manner to share: - The exact method - The dataset - The raw numbers I'm not arguing for or against any tool (I'm yet to try tup or ninja), but tup's author actually does a "tup vs mordor" benchmark, where he shows the tool is slower by a constant vs an ideal, hypothetical, all-knowing, ungodly-optimised build tool. http://gittup.org/tup/tup_vs_mordor.html <3,K.
