← Back to context

Comment by IshKebab

11 hours ago

I don't think it's fair to say "because they are lazy or don't understand". Who would want to understand that mess? It isn't a virtue.

A fairer criticism would be that they have no sense to use a more sane build system. CMake is a mess but even that is faaaaar saner than autotools, and probably more popular at this point.

10 comments

IshKebab

Reply
smartmic  3 hours ago

I took the trouble (and even spent the money) to get to grips with autotools in a structured and detailed way by buying a book [1] about it and reading as much as possible. Yes, it's not trivial, but autotools are not witchcraft either, but as written elsewhere, a masterpiece of engineering. I have dealt with it without prejudice and since then I have been more of a fan of autotools than a hater. Anyway, I highly recommend the book and yes, after reading it, I think autotools is better than its reputation.

[1] https://nostarch.com/autotools2e

xiaoyu2006  8 hours ago

Autotools use M4 to meta-program a bash script that meta-programs a bunch of C(++) sources and generates C(++) sources that utilizes meta-programming for different configurations; after which the meta-programmed script, again, meta-programs monolithic makefiles.

This is peak engineering.

knorker  6 hours ago

autotools is the worst, except for all the others.

I'd like to think of myself as reasonable, so I'll just say that reasonable people may disagree with your assertion that cmake is in any way at all better than autotools.

  • IshKebab  4 hours ago

    Nope, autotools is actually the worst.

    There is no way in hell anyone reasonable could say that Autotools is better than CMake.

    • pletnes  2 hours ago

      Configure-make is easier to use for someone else. Configuring a cmake based project is slightly harder. In every other conceivable way I agree 100% (until someone can convince me otherwise)