thuang@pilot.njin.net (Terence Huang) (04/15/89)
Is Polytron's make facility substantially better than the make
facility that comes packaged with various software packages, e.g.
Borland's Turbo Pascal? Is it worth the extra dough?
- thuang@pilot.njin.netjeff@cdp.UUCP (04/16/89)
Polytron's "make" is good, but the best "make" that I know of is Opus Make, which was written by the folks who wrote the shareware NDMAKE package. It has features galore and it costs much less than Polytron's package (I think it is about $75). If you're on a tight budget, try NDMAKE, which can be downloaded from many BBSes. Jeff Dean uunet!pyramid!cdp!jeff hplabs!cdp!jeff Standard disclaimer: I have no connection to Opus; I've used their software and I like it.
Eric.Martinson@busker.FIDONET.ORG (Eric Martinson) (04/20/89)
Polytron is much nicer than Borland or Microsoft's make. It offers
many features that make is completely adaptable to any special
circumstances. It supports the concept of <include> files so you
can create boiler plate style make files (one of the products at my
company contains over 150 makefiles and over 1500 source files -
impossible to maintain this many files without flexibility.)
--
Eric Martinson - via FidoNet node 1:105/14
UUCP: ...!{uunet!oresoft, tektronix!reed}!busker!Eric.Martinson
ARPA: Eric.Martinson@busker.FIDONET.ORGDevin_E_Ben-Hur@cup.portal.com (04/26/89)
> Polytron is much nicer than Borland or Microsoft's make. It offers > many features that make is completely adaptable to any special > circumstances. It supports the concept of <include> files so you > can create boiler plate style make files (one of the products at my > company contains over 150 makefiles and over 1500 source files - > impossible to maintain this many files without flexibility.) > > > > -- > Eric Martinson - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 > UUCP: ...!{uunet!oresoft, tektronix!reed}!busker!Eric.Martinson > ARPA: Eric.Martinson@busker.FIDONET.ORG Polytron may offer some additional bells and whistles, but Borland's make (not thier integrated "project" facility) has supported file inclusion and conditional directives since v1.0. Yes, very handy for boiler plate and producing multiple versions (debug, production, demo, etc.) from common makefiles. Best of all, it's free with the compiler. Devin_Ben-Hur@Cup.Portal.Com ...ucbvax!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!devin_ben-hur
sullivan@marge.math.binghamton.edu (fred sullivan) (04/27/89)
In article <17578@cup.portal.com> Devin_E_Ben-Hur@cup.portal.com writes: > >Polytron may offer some additional bells and whistles, but Borland's make >(not thier integrated "project" facility) has supported file inclusion >and conditional directives since v1.0. Yes, very handy for boiler plate >and producing multiple versions (debug, production, demo, etc.) from common >makefiles. Best of all, it's free with the compiler. But Borland's make (and the public domain makes I've used) are broken in the following way: they do not properly handle transitive implicit dependencies. E.g. .a.b: ... .b.c: ... If a .b file exists then they remake things correctly, but cannot rebuild everything from a .a file with no .b file in existence. Check it out. Does anyone know of a public domain make which handles this properly?? Fred Sullivan SUNY at Binghamton Dept. Math. Sciences Binghamton, NY 13903 sullivan@marge.math.binghamton.edu First you make a roux!