On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > can you explain me how you solve the problem of duplicated static > symbols?
It's not as big of a problem you're making it out to be. Neither dwm or st for example has duplicated static symbols. And it's easily solvable by having a slightly more descriptive name (avoiding unnecessary global variables also reduces chances of collision). > Can you explain me where is the complexity? I've already given a list of things on my initial post. But if I need to repeat one of them: Dependency tracking is easily the biggest problem that incremental builds introduce. Which is something that: a) your tiny example makefile did not tackle b) dwm makefile gets wrong as it does not track drw.h nor util.h (dmenu also fails to track util.h as well). Aside from that, unity-build only requires a compiler. A Makefile additionally requires (i) a Make implementation (ii) (usually) a posix compliant shell. Also this conversation feels like it's going in circles with me having to constantly repeat things I've already said, so I'll say this: If you're already convinced that a makefile is better than a unity build, then that's fine. I'm not interested in forcing you to use something else. Nor am I interested in fighting some editor^W build-system war. But I've tried out both makefiles (both simple and "complex" ones) and unity-build and *my* conclusion is that the latter is significantly simpler and superior for small projects - and I've given a list of reason on my initial post. If someone thinks those are valid reasons, then try it out. If not, then don't. - NRK
