| 1 |
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:36:07 +0000 |
| 2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> It's arguably a bug that a projects gets huge. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sometimes huge projects are split into many internally. Imagine this |
| 7 |
was using autotools. I doubt it could use a master configure for all |
| 8 |
sub projects, but maybe. |
| 9 |
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> The simplicity of configure+make is difficult to beat, but I also |
| 12 |
> agree that it's difficult or at least tedious to master autotools. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The syntax is nasty, the files get big quick. But that is not my main |
| 15 |
gripe with what I call as a suite autotools. Make is not so much of an |
| 16 |
issue, but configure I absolutely hate. I cannot understand why |
| 17 |
systems get faster, yet configure seems to take the same amount of time |
| 18 |
and is super slow. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
On small projects configure can take longer than compile... Configure |
| 21 |
is my main gripe against make/autotools. Plus all the other stuff, |
| 22 |
auto-reconf, autogen, etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> That is arguably reason enough to choose meson, but I think I will |
| 25 |
> stay with autotools for a while.. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Its likely to remain for sometime. I am not on the meson bandwagon |
| 28 |
entirely as I like cmake+cpack. But I am surprised how many projects |
| 29 |
are migrating to meson. Seems to be the current trend, and a |
| 30 |
considerable amount moving to meson. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Meson vs cmake configure is not that big of a difference. maybe like |
| 33 |
make vs ninja. But Meson or Cmake vs configure, HUGE difference... |
| 34 |
The larger the project, the slower configure can be. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives