Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!ggs
From: ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: 'nmake'
Summary: brief case history, request for comments
Message-ID: <11593@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 25 May 89 14:16:44 GMT
References: <1989@internal.Apple.COM> <11570@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <2066@unisoft.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 48

In article <2066@unisoft.UUCP>, sparker@unisoft.UUCP (Steve Parker) writes:
...
> > First of all, you can turn off source scanning if you want. And, anyway,
> > source files are rescanned only if they've changed since the last time
> > they were compiled, so you're clearly exaggerating the overhead.
> 
> Sorry, it makes it slightly slower.  And wrong.

I haven't noticed any slowdown caused by this.  But that's not the
point; in practice, this feature saves me a lot of effort.  I tried to
use `make' to direct compilation of about 80 C++ source files, plus
associated function prototype headers.  I could not reliably keep the
header references up to date.  I realize that I could have stolen a
`make depend' script from some of the BSD source, but my headers were
changing so frequently that I would have had to `make depend' before
most compilations.  The default nmake rules did the right thing.  I
will add any flames that `you should have done it this way, you dolt'
to my bag of tricks.  I haven't seen any better ones than what I get
from nmake.

> Nmake isn't simple.  Putting features like scanning C source files for
> dependencies is a poor cost/benefit decision.  Nmake's design reflects
> an attempt to design with _all_ possible customers in mind.
> 
> In my opinion, nmake is a poorer tool even than make.  And other new
> makes have a less confusing, more sensible view of the world.  (e.g.,
> mk and GNUmake)

I share many of your concerns; I don't care for the `slices, dices,
chops and grates' syndrome either.  My dependence on nmake is similar
to that of an addict for drugs.  I can do without it for most C
compilations, but when I try to use `make' for building C++ systems I
get withdrawal symptoms.  The automatic maintenance of source
dependencies eliminates a major headache.  Perhaps this means that I
should also discard C++ because it also attempts to address too many
problems without delegation.

I'm sorry that the Toolchest version of nmake has caused you so much
grief.  I have been using the new version for about a year now, and it
has usually served me well (it also helps to know Glenn's phone
number).  I doubt that it will ever overcome your philosophical
objections, but it is considerably more polished than it was three
years ago.
-- 
Griff Smith	AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill
Phone:		1-201-582-7736
UUCP:		{most AT&T sites}!ulysses!ggs
Internet:	ggs@ulysses.att.com