| 1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> I cannot understand why systems get faster, yet configure seems to |
| 3 |
> take the same amount of time and is super slow. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The generated configure scripts can be fork intensive, which is still |
| 6 |
fairly expensive. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
But I think the problem is more with poorly written configure source, |
| 9 |
which is the argument about mastering.. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> On small projects configure can take longer than compile... Configure |
| 13 |
> is my main gripe against make/autotools. Plus all the other stuff, |
| 14 |
> auto-reconf, autogen, etc. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
configure having zero dependencies is the killer feature compared |
| 17 |
to all other options. The tight integration between configure and |
| 18 |
cross-toolchains is also a very strong point. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The larger the project, the slower configure can be. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Doesn't have to be, but it's easy to write poor configure source and |
| 24 |
difficult to write good source. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
//Peter |
Archives