Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Ever heard of mk? (was Re: Thoughts about "make")
Message-ID: <3108@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 08:47:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.3108
Posted: Wed Oct 21 08:47:24 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Oct-87 06:42:29 EDT
References: <1700@botter.cs.vu.nl> <421@virginia.acc.virginia.edu> <3066@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <8806@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 17

In article <8806@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

>It depends on what you are doing.  Andrew Hume, author of mk, characterized
>nmake as "an expert system for C programmers".  A valuable thing, yes, but
>less general and much more complex than mk.

How is nmake "less general" than mk?. Is there anything you can do in mk
that you couldn't do in nmake?

nmake (the program itself) is much more complex than mk because it is more
powerful. However, makefiles for nmake are not complex; are much more readable
and small than plain make makefiles. I'll be happy to send you examples so
that you can judge for yourself.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill

    {ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell