Re: Pros & Cons of makefiles vs. i4gl
In article <36487C98.6E5C@bayer.co.uk>, Peter Lancashire <Peter.Lancashi re.PL1@bayer.co.uk> writes >Jonathan Leffler wrote: >> >> 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> > >I agree. I use make. You can get around the edit/compile/fix loop faster >with a vi map (or emacs command) to jump to the correct position in the >*.err file. > >Another advantage: make allows use of long filenames (where Informix >tools allow them...). I prefer make.. make -k compiles everything it can and leaves .err files for everything which failed to compile. On-site install = install Informix untar source make -k go to lunch make -n and vi *.err shows what failed to compile!! dave, who has done two onsite installs in the last 2 days! PS I hate UNIXware (2.1.1??) and old ICL DRS/MX MP machine... make has a limit on the length of line it can process:- all: $BIN_DIR/1.4ge $BIN_DIR/2.4ge ... $BIN_DIR/330.4ge gives line too long error hence much vi'ing to create smaller sub-makefiles...The DRS/NX is old hence I can understand it but the Unixware box is new!! *&(^(*&^(*&^(&^!! Give me a decent Sun box + Solaris 2.6/2.7 anyday..Ultrasparc RULES!!! -- David Williams Maintainer of the Informix FAQ Primary site (Beta Version) http://www.smooth1.demon.co.uk Official site http://www.iiug.org/techinfo/faq/faq_top.html I see you standin', Standin' on your own, It's such a lonely place for you, For you to be If you need a shoulder, Or if you need a friend, I'll be here standing, Until the bitter end... So don't chastise me Or think I, I mean you harm... All I ever wanted Was for you To know that I care