On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:08:08AM +1200, David Phillips wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Michael Forney wrote: > > … Anyway, I'm a little suprised about the distaste for ninja since > > it's features are pretty much the same as POSIX make (variable > > assignments and rule definitions). > > I suppose the last half of that sentence outlines the distaste for it; > maybe it is reinventing the wheel?
It is basically make, but it's proud to be "faster". I don't understand this "faster" on our super powerfull computers, how could it be significant? Coze it's just computing dependencies and firing-up some commands. A good benchmark with significant results would be to compile, for instance, a massive pile of junk like llvm, with ninja then make... but we cannot, because last time I checked, cmake(c++) was able to generate a parallel build system only for ninja and not make. -- Sylvain
