|
|
|
|
|
|
by FrankHB
2623 days ago
|
|
|
There are too many things to be improved, e.g. support of simple (enough) cases w/o any scriptish code, getting away of stupid syntaxes (like distinctions of indents with TABs vs. spaces) in makefiles, avoiding being relied on as a command line tool in LTO builds (grep GCC source if you don't know how MAKE is depended on), saner parallelism... If there are not so many things to be improved, there should not have been so many tools to replace `make`. |
|
|
There isn't? The actual non broken badly designed ones that don't generate a DAG and aren't tied to a language is make, tup, ninja and redo.