Re: [GD-General] Compile times

[Thatcher U. <tu...@tu...>]

On Dec 09, 2002 at 11:38 -0600, brian hook wrote:
>  
> > Unfortunately the link time didn't seem to drop any, which is the
> 
> Are your codebases built into a single monolithic EXE, or an EXE and
> multiple DLLs?  The latter approach seems to help link times
> appreciably.

It's monolithic (this is for Xbox; dunno if something DLL-like is
possible).

> Speaking of which, I'm curious if anyone has tried using jam (Just
> Another Make)?  make isn't even quite 80s technology, much less
> 2000+ technology.  It's mind bogglingly obtuse, yet somehow manages
> to survive even today.  jam is an attempt to sort out this mess
> somewhat more cleanly, and Apple has migrated to it for
> ProjectBuilder.

I gave Jam the "old college try" on an earlier version of the code at
Oddworld.  I eventually decided it was just as cryptic as make, but
cryptic in a way that's less familiar, less well documented, and less
actively supported (compared to GNU make).  I ran into numerous quirks
with NT shell limitations, and confusion trying to shoehorn Xbox's
build process into Jam's model.  I have no doubt that it can be made
to work smoothly, but I also think it offers no compelling advantage
over GNU make, so for me it's a devil-you-know
vs. devil-you-don't-know situation.

Also, this (extremely practical and informative) paper convinced me
that Jam's vaunted speed advantage over make is due to widespread
misuse of make, rather than a fundamental problem:

http://www.tip.net.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich
http://tulrich.com