[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: c/c++ project management and debugging
From: |
Richard Riley |
Subject: |
Re: c/c++ project management and debugging |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:27:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
despen@verizon.net writes:
> Rajinder Yadav <devguy.ca@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 10-12-20 08:28 PM, Andrea Crotti wrote:
>>> Rajinder Yadav<devguy.ca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> yes i already have cedet installed and working, but i would rather not
>>>> write makefiles by hand. i understand there is also autoconf that can
>>>> be used to generate makefiles, possible that's a better way to go,
>>>> still i don't feel like investing the time to learn about autoconf at
>>>> this point and time
>>>
>>> There is also cmake otherwise.
>>> The problem is that or
>>> - you learn a bit the autoconf skills you need (doesn't take long)
>>> and finally write your own build systems
>>> - you'll be stuck forever with what other people (microsoft/cedet)
>>> thik is a good idea, and normally it isn't
>>>
>>> Using emacs I think it doesn't make any sense to look for tools that
>>> write makefiles for you...
>>
>>
>> Andrea, thanks for your reply!
>>
>> My reply here is not a direct response to you, but what i feel in
>> general (a windows IDE guy in a Linux command line world)
>>
>> I don't quite understand the rational against emacs + auto makefile
>> generation, it kind of hinders progress imho? if someone doesn't like
>> the way emacs or netbean does things (for them) with makefiles, they
>> always have the choice of doing it by hand, that is the beauty of
>> having more choices, so stop taking away my choices if I simply ask or
>> enquire for feature y!
>
> I don't quite understand what these comments are about.
> I keep seeing references to the cedet project and it certainly
> claims to write Makefiles:
>
> http://cedet.sourceforge.net/ede.shtml
>
> Isn't that good enough?
>
> As I said, I don't use code generators and I don't want a
> machine generated Makefile. I think hand created Makefiles
> are more useful. That's what makes a world.
Why do you think that? "Useful" is something that helps. How can hand
written ones by "useful". You can always hand write ones : auto
generated ones are "useful" for the 99% of people who dont want to have
to go through the drudgery and mechanics of something as trite as
makefiles and dependency management.
Bottom line : if the feature is there you can ignore it. If its not,
people ignore emacs.
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Elena, 2010/12/23
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/12/23
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Andrea Crotti, 2010/12/24
- Message not available
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Richard Riley, 2010/12/24
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2010/12/24
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Richard Riley, 2010/12/24
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, rusi, 2010/12/25
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2010/12/25
- Message not available
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2010/12/21
- Message not available
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, despen, 2010/12/21
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging,
Richard Riley <=
- Message not available
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Jason Earl, 2010/12/21
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Elena, 2010/12/21
- Message not available
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Jason Earl, 2010/12/21
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Rajinder Yadav, 2010/12/21
- Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Rajinder Yadav, 2010/12/21
Re: c/c++ project management and debugging, Elena, 2010/12/20