Re: Pros & Cons of makefiles vs. i4gl

Schaeflein, Paul wrote: > I have implemented makefiles - primarily so that the make/compile > process will get the 4gl source from the sccs directory with the > identification codes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. Paige Miller [mailto:cpaigemiller@mindspring.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 3:24 PM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Pros & Cons of makefiles vs. i4gl > > I'm at a client site that has a gang of developers split on > migrating from i4gl's way of building a program to > makefiles. Can I get some succinct input from various experts > out here about pros, cons, & getcha's of makefiles > vs. i4gl's? In addition to Paul's reason, which is excellent, I'd add: * Make can build forms and message files * Make does better dependency checking * Make can be told to recompile after tables are modified (see an article I wrote in Tech Notes about 4 years ago) * Make can be told to install software * Make can be run overnight -- automatically * Make handles arbitrarily long sets of options to link programs * Make can build the entire project if set up right * Makefiles can be put under CM control (SCCS, RCS, ...) * Makefiles don't get forgotten when porting to a new box About the only advantage of I4GL or R4GL is the edit/compile/fix cycle for forms and source -- and you can use either the D4GL program from the D4GL corner of the IDN web-site (http://www.informix.com/idn) or the base program from which that was derived, called J4GL. I'm not sure that's out on the web yet; ask, and ye shall (most probably) receive. Both programs work with make but provide the convenient edit/compile/fix cycle from i4gl and r4gl. -- Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com, jleffler@earthlink.net) Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.60 -- see http://www.perl.com/CPAN #include <disclaimer.h>