From: 0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at   
      
   On 25.01.2012 20:19, Thomas Richter wrote:   
   > On 24.01.2012 02:44, Miles Bader wrote:   
   >> Mathias Gaunard writes:   
   >>> On Jan 21, 3:23 pm, Roman W wrote:   
   >>>> Whereas whenever I need to write/modify a Makefile, I need to google   
   >>>> for the manual of the syntax, because the patterns and   
   >>>> pre-defined variables are cryptic to me.   
   >>>   
   >>> Few people still write Makefiles by hand in this day and age.   
   >>> Most people use autotools, jam, CMake, SCons or lesser-known build   
   >>> systems. (the last two can generate Visual Studio project and solution   
   >>> files)   
   >>   
   >> I'm not sure that changes the point -- those are all fine systems   
   >> (though far from perfect), but none could exactly be called   
   >> "intuitive" for somebody that that doesn't use them regularly.   
   >   
   > Certainly not. I personally wouldn't call C++ "intuitive" either, but   
   > powerful. (-: It's the same with such tools: There are also very   
   > powerful, and with power comes complexity. The point is just that they   
   > are, in my experience, much more powerful than a relatively simple build   
   > process I can trigger from an IDE, and they can integrate many   
   > more steps in software development than a GUI could. That *includes*   
   > building autodocs, manuals from TeX, building distributions of code etc.   
   >   
      
   I dunno. I want my C++ build tools to build my C++ source code into   
   (executable) binary form. That's complicated enough as it is, and a tool   
   that does that well is a good tool. If I want more, I can always add   
   scripting around this, no need to have all these abilities built into   
   the C++-build-system.   
      
   Example: The Visual Studio project/Solution build is absolutely   
   sufficient to compile+build C++. The packaging/doc build/etc. is then   
   done by other scripts that just invoke the VC project/solution from the   
   command line. Each tool to it's own.   
      
   cheers,   
   Martin   
      
   --   
   Good C++ code is better than good C code, but   
   bad C++ can be much, much worse than bad C code.   
      
      
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)