Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!labtam!timr From: timr@labtam.oz (Tim Roper) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: imake considered useful (was Re: R5 Wish List (Imake to the bitbucket)) Summary: agree with Paul. Message-ID: <5005@labtam.oz> Date: 18 Jul 90 01:07:41 GMT References: <2767@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> Organization: Labtam Limited., Melbourne, Australia Lines: 29 In article <2767@uakari.primate.wisc.edu>, bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: > From article , by montnaro@milkweed.crd.ge.com (Skip Montanaro): > > > > How about getting rid of Imake and using GNU make instead for R5? I've never > > gotten Imake to work properly, and always wind up translating Imakefiles > > into GNUmakefiles. > > Ahh .... no. Please don't. Imake is wonderful. It would, though, > ... > Or is it just me? I really like imake a lot, but found I have to invest > quite a bit of time trying to understand it before I was able to take > it and use it for my own projects. Is this unusual? > ... [This note is in support of Paul's view with a subjective assessment of my experiences with imake etc.] I found that investing a bit of effort in the imake learning curve is paying large dividends, eg. I can build most clients that come over the net with an Imakefile without changing anything (and I am using a System V unix). In fact when I want to build one that doesn't come with an Imakefile I find it easier to write an Imakefile than edit the Makefile. Having spent a significant proportion of "programming" time editing other people's Makefile's so that they would build on whatever system I was using at the time, I have found imake an overall win. -Tim.