#44176 - gbalase - Mon May 30, 2005 10:16 pm
how do u compile your programs?
#44183 - sajiimori - Mon May 30, 2005 10:52 pm
Better read the FAQ, eh? :P
#44190 - yaustar - Mon May 30, 2005 11:37 pm
Using a compilar either with GNU Make or batch files.. and yeah.. read the FAQ...
#44197 - linus - Tue May 31, 2005 12:46 am
This is a question i was going to ask, not in the literal sense but as a personal choice:
Make/batch files or
IDE integrationy type stuff
Ive been fiddling with a few things here and there using batch files so far because i havent had much luck setting up Dev C++.
When it comes to flexability what is the best choice (if theres much of a difference) when taking into consideration changing external picture objects etc.
Linus
#44202 - sajiimori - Tue May 31, 2005 1:19 am
Both for me. I have the IDE invoke my scripts.
#44205 - linus - Tue May 31, 2005 2:04 am
So the scripts are automated to an extent? Which IDE do u use?
#44207 - sajiimori - Tue May 31, 2005 2:17 am
The point of scripts is to automate something.
I use Visual Studio at work and ConTEXT at home (which barely qualifies as an IDE, but it has hotkeys).
#44208 - poslundc - Tue May 31, 2005 2:25 am
| linus wrote: |
| When it comes to flexability what is the best choice (if theres much of a difference) when taking into consideration changing external picture objects etc. |
In terms of flexibility, I don't think there's anything out there that surpasses the power of makefiles.
In terms of convenience, they are a real pain to learn and understand, and even harder to understand well, and are usually avoidable enough that even programmers who use them regularly (myself included) never get very far with them.
If I could do things over again, though, I would dedicate more time early on to figuring out makefiles. As a project grows, your knowledge of not only how to write them but how to write them well will prove invaluable.
I think most modern IDEs have options to invoke external make scripts. If yours does, then go for it... I couldn't give you a list of which ones do, but I'll note that even if yours doesn't it's usually a matter of pressing "up" in a console window to bring back the last command (usually "make" or "make something"). I would favour this option over setting up a complicated integration process with my IDE... one technique is portable and the other isn't.
Batch files are a DOS workaround for a tool that doesn't exist in DOS. By the time your project grows beyond five or six files, you'll be clamouring for a makefile. (By the time it grows to several hundred/thousand, you may have several.) Learn to use makefiles instead; batch files are only delaying the inevitable.
Dan.
#44215 - sajiimori - Tue May 31, 2005 2:57 am
If I could go back, I wonder if I'd learn something like SCons instead. Having a real language to back it up is appealing -- I've often wondered why on earth we need this complicated pseudo-language behind make, rather than just using a real language and adding build rules as a library.
#44226 - poslundc - Tue May 31, 2005 4:21 am
In a *NIX environment - where most software packages come in source format and often only compiled to target binaries on the end user's machine - having a universal tool for managing that process is pretty mandatory.
Building it on as an extension to another language would probably weaken it from serving that fundamental purpose.
Not that I like make... I don't; but I understand its existence.
Dan.
#44234 - sajiimori - Tue May 31, 2005 5:09 am
I'm pretty sure I understand its existence as well. It started out as a minimal build automation tool, and as builds got more complex, it started evolving programming-language-like features one at a time, never actually developing a linguistic foundation.
I can count the special things that make does on one hand. Adding those features to a real language should not be unreasonable, as long as that language is light on scaffolding and capable of cleanly abstracting over the concepts involved. Python fits the bill.
The worst that could happen is that you have too many features that don't matter for a typical build. (Well, that and you'd have to learn a new tool that isn't the established standard.)
#44317 - Miked0801 - Tue May 31, 2005 8:01 pm
emacs...
Let the holy wars begin again.
#44319 - sajiimori - Tue May 31, 2005 8:16 pm
Don't change the subject!! :P
#44341 - tepples - Tue May 31, 2005 9:57 pm
| poslundc wrote: |
| In terms of flexibility, I don't think there's anything out there that surpasses the power of makefiles. |
The first two results from Google "better than make" bring up Ant and Jam, two alternatives to Make. However, I still use Make.
| Quote: |
| Batch files are a DOS workaround for a tool that doesn't exist in DOS. |
Batch files are just another name for shell scripts, especially on Windows 2000 and Windows XP that have a decent command processor.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#44352 - gbalase - Tue May 31, 2005 10:42 pm
in visual ham i get this error when i try to build
heres the error
makefile:5: C:\Ham\/system/master.mak: No such file or directory
makefile:35: C:\Ham\/system/standard-targets.mak: No such file or directory
make.exe: *** No rule to make target `C:\Ham\/system/standard-targets.mak'. Stop.
#44369 - gbalase - Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:54 am
nevermind i got it fixed but now i have another problem and here it is "The procedure entry point__gettreent could not be located in the dynamic library cygwin1.dll" how do i fix that and im using visual ham
#44436 - Quirky - Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:16 pm
| Miked0801 wrote: |
emacs...
Let the holy wars begin again. |
Vim! None of that nasty ctrl+ stuff that ends in really tired little fingers and it's so horribly difficult for newbs that they struggle just to type *anything*! :-)
#44442 - Miked0801 - Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:20 pm
Everyone knows real men use ed.
:P
#44470 - tepples - Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:08 am
Smart men use Edd.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.