oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (05/23/89)
In article <24658@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mcgrath@homer.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath) writes: >If AT&T wanted me to be able to make a fair comparison, they ought to >give me the manuals, and the product itself, to examine for free. >It seems fair to me. I really do not think AT&T gives a zip about you making a fair comparison, perhaps rightly so. Nobody is obliged to buy anything from the toolchest, just like nobody is obliged to run your incredibly whizzy superset-of-all gnumake. I happen to use MK, from toolchest, real cheap, compiled in a flash, works like a charm. Yep, mk files are non-standard as well. In MY opinion, small price to pay for the flexibity MK provides. As for nmake documentation, see 1985 summer usenix proceedings for a paper on this particular variant. In general, this "make wars" is very boring (To quote: my make is better than yours nyah nyah !!), because one can have their "Cake", "Pmake", "Parmake", "Cmake", "mk", "gnumake", or various "enhanced" versions of make (done eons ago, using cpp, m4 etc. see 1983 Toronto proceedings) or simply the good old ordinary make and still get useful work done. Oh, what was it you were saying about this interesting and neat program you invented called something-or-other-make ?? :-| oz -- DEC-SI Suit: If Ford or GM had Usenet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca patents on the way a tire is mounted ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz on an axle, we'd all be a lot poorer Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] right now. [Mike Vizard] Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976