Dear Ben,
I believe Sergey Matveev here is much more of an expert on this matter
than I am,
seeing how he has even developed his own high-performance implementation.
Nevertheless, these are some of the reasons I care about redo, in no
particular order:
- It does not suffer from the same obvious oversights as make, like
the awkward handling of spaces in filenames.
- Out-of-source builds are easy, even in complicated source hierarchies.
- make is bad at modularity, especially recursion (subprojects). See
'Recursive make considered harmful'.
redo, on the other hand, relies on well-designed recursion as a
fundamental building block of the entire build system.
- It is actually much simpler to implement than traditional make, not harder
- IMO it handles generated dependencies / dynamic dependency discovery
much better than make
- Purely POSIX-compatible Makefiles are painful. All make
implementations therefore provide ample extensions,
and they are all incompatible. Ever compared an ideomatic BSD
Makefile to a GNU one?
redo, on the other hand, is fairly universal, even though it is not
as well-standardized.
This is simply because it does not need much in terms of extensions
to be usable.
Cheers,
Thomas Oltmann
Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 22:23 Uhr schrieb <b...@0x1bi.net>:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> What's wrong with plain old make? I don't think there's a need to write
> more build tools when one is already enough; if we keep writing build
> tools we'll end up with tools like autoconf.
>
>
> Ben Raskin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iHUEARYIAB0WIQSVj5ObtUZn7L8NuN+O1YyzbQMTOgUCYTe8GQAKCRCO1YyzbQMT
> OhvfAP9zvrBVQ6kZZLeiZsczahSp8tQsiNF/R7Mc8WM+iNx/zAD/bQ3PhFGRxvVQ
> cN5Zu82/SPbI0DijmtGH9/2DSCa+6QI=
> =fSVp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
