Re^2: Sick of make, is there a replacement?

:) friend , make does not imply Makefile.PL/ExtUtils::MakeMaker

These may be of interest to the OP

Comment on Re^2: Sick of make, is there a replacement?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Sick of make, is there a replacement? by CountZero (Bishop) on Aug 05, 2015 at 09:20 UTC
True, but `make` as such is not the problem but rather the difficulty of writing a makefile. ExtUtils::MakeMaker takes "care" of that. In most cases it simply works although there will be few people who will totally understand what is happening and it is a pain to do anything that is even a little outside of the standard practices. `makepp` being a drop-in replacement for `make` suffers from the same problems. Module::Build was started to do away with the dependence on the esoteric makefiles, but it did not fully deliver up on its promises and it just became another black box system to install Perl modules. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James My blog: Imperial Deltronics	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Sick of make, is there a replacement? by Anonymous Monk on Aug 05, 2015 at 09:35 UTC
True, but... Why assume perl modules aka Makefile.PL/Build.PL? make is used for so much more than that	[reply]