Le 04/07/2015 16:58, Roger Leigh a écrit :
> On 04/07/2015 12:23, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>> * On 2015 04 Jul 05:02 -0500, John Jensen wrote:
>
>> A lot of software is built using GNU Autotools. It is a very extensive
>> system that has a very steep learning curve in proportion with its
>> power. The GNU documentation serves more as a reference manual than a
>> HOWTO, however, one site I found very useful was the Autotools Myth
>> Buster:
>>
>> https://autotools.io/index.html
>>
>> More packages are using Cmake, but unless the package you're interested
>> in is using it, you can safely avoid its details for now. Also, if
>> you're developing in Qt you'll need to be familiar with Qmake. These
>> are just the more frequently found alternatives to the Autotools. The
>> alternative is writing Makefiles by hand.
>
> Mostly agreed on all the points you made. But WRT the autotools, they
> are such a baroque collection of tools, requiring knowledge of a
> minimum of five languages to use effectively (Bourne shell, m4, make,
> autoconf and automake), I can't really recommend learning them over
> learning CMake. CMake is not the cleanest scripting language either,
> but you only need to learn one rather than five; on top of that, it's
> portable to more systems, more powerful and vastly simpler to learn.
> Unless you're heavily invested in existing autotools-using projects, I
> don't think it's worth the pain, to be honest. [I say this as an
> autotools user of 15 years, who switched his projects to CMake over
> the last two years.]
>
> It not that the autotools don't work, but they are still focussed on
> solving the portability problems of two decades back; CMake is much
> better at solving the portability problems of the present.
>
> And with respect to learning C, it's certainly useful. However, I
> would highly recommend also learning other languages such as C++ and
> Python. In the free software world, C use is still widespread, but
> it's a 45 year old language which has been improved upon many times
> over by other languages, but despite that we continue to use it in
> situations where it's inappropriate. Don't limit yourself. If you've
> not used C++ before, try out C++11/14 and look at something like
> http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033707.do -- it's a much nicer
> language than it used to be, and you can be massively more productive
> in it than with C.
>
>
> Regards,
> Roger
> _______________________________________________
I believe you when you write autotools are obsolete, but almost all
essential packages use it. It is a nightmare when you are building with
an alternate C library because there is very often some test which fails
for a futile reason, and, you find yourself with no more clue than a bug
contemplating an ophicleide.
About C++, I cannot resist to make a little joke: In math, +- means
-, -- means + and ++ means +. But for languages ++ means - :-)
Another one: since C++ is a post-increment, the compiler upgrades
just after it has compiled your program; too bad, sorry!
I dislike this language as you can understand. There are better,
richer, and in the same time easier, high level languages. I don't put a
blame on anybody for why it imposed itself everywhere; I think the
reasons are very human. If you write programs in C++ you can be proud of
yourself because it is very difficult and painful. For me it is like
autotools, something you are forced to live with.
Didier
::
Re: [DNG] Dng Digest, Vol 10, Issue…
