![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
nerdy Here's a nice (and real) output, proving that life is happier (and a lot easier) with make and Makefiles:
javac -d ../../bin -cp ../../bin/:../../jars/log4j.jar:../../ja
Note: ModulesSettingsHandler.java uses unchecked or unsafe operations.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
javac -d ../../bin -cp ../../bin/:../../jars/log4j.jar:../../ja
javac -d ../../bin -cp ../../bin/:../../jars/log4j.jar:../../ja
javac -d ../../bin -cp ../../bin/:../../jars/log4j.jar:../../ja
Note: MessageHandler.java uses unchecked or unsafe operations.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
javac -d ../../bin -cp ../../bin/:../../jars/log4j.jar:../../ja
javac -d ../../bin -cp ../../bin/:../../jars/log4j.jar:../../ja
Notes:
[1] This is real. I dislike ant, which is a lot harder to use (xml is for bots, not humans!)
[2] I am not quitting C (not even planned for the next 15 years)
[3] These are some files from the P2P security layer, Detsch's master thesis work.
July 18 2005, 16:15:55 UTC 6 years ago
Alternative for ant
Have you tried scons [1]?This guy is like a Makefile, but with a autotools and ccache build-in.
1. http://www.scons.org/
July 18 2005, 16:16:55 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Alternative for ant
I forgot to say, and it's cross-platform.July 18 2005, 18:47:33 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Alternative for ant
very nice! :)it has even a (n apparently) great support for java stuff.
the nice thing with make is that you learn a lot from what you're coding (the code shown here is not mine, but I'll maintain it for some time).
perhaps, if someone can write a Makefile for something that really works (ie, not using cheats, like makedepend or autotools), that's half-way to full understanding of what he/she is working on.
size doesn't matter -- the Linux kernel uses hand tunned Makefiles, AFAIK. and I consider it a big project :)
July 18 2005, 17:32:12 UTC 6 years ago
If you have to use make/ant...
then Java failed.Java is supposed to build a program "intelligently" just given the path of the main class. Of course, we know this does not happen in practice -- personally, I used simple build.sh scripts back in my Java days. Today, I'd probably use a Makefile (since now I'm kinda turned into -- the horror! -- a C programmer).
With fpc I never needed a build script/makefile. Given the main program, it always did dependency checking and on-demand compilation perfectly. Good language design goes a long way.
July 18 2005, 18:51:03 UTC 6 years ago
Re: If you have to use make/ant...
write this down, please:"When the time comes, assembly will prove itself as the only true portable and maintainable language (specially RISC assembly). It's the only language error-proof on its roots. IE, unless you rot13 your source, no "compiler" can fail to 1:1 translate your txt into machine code (only crap compilers, of course, but those will not survive either)"
Perhaps this is my first "postulate" or law.
:)
July 18 2005, 20:00:18 UTC 6 years ago
Mind-boggled
Still absorbed in the shock of trying to understand assembly as a portable language.:-O
July 18 2005, 22:10:01 UTC 6 years ago
Re: If you have to use make/ant...
Right in the head. When I have to do a global "make", I do the following:for i in `find * | grep -i java | (tons of grep -v's)`; do javac $i; done 2> err.txt.
This happens once a day. Just once. 80% of the time it returns "zero" lines.