> However, anyone who is comfortable with creating makefiles has quite a bit
> of choice. I've been trying to familiarise myself with DMAKE for quite some
> time, and that seems to be a very powerful and configurable make program It
> is available on a large number of platforms, although I don't know anyone
> who uses it personally, but could do with swapping a few tips...

Make has several problems (all of which you can work around, but they annoy me.)

1) You have to explain to it how to use your compiler in every make file you create.

You can include a default section of make file to get around this one, but
you generally have to come up with it yourself.

2) You have to update the dependencies manually.

There are utilities to get around this, but again they vary from compiler
to compiler and you have to remember to run them.

3) The syntax is downright wierd.

This isn't so bad when the requirement for actual embedded tab characters
isn't enforced, and as microsoft has proven you can get used to ANYTHING
once you've used it long enough...

4) There are several versions of make which are almost, but not quite,
compatible with each other.

As you said, you can pick one that's available on several platforms and
stick with it.

> If you are familiar with MAKE, have a look at DMAKE, and see what you think
> of it... It could really do with a good help file and/or tutorial.

I've used it.  Took me almost an hour to get it set up so it would work
properly.  (I remember it wanted an environment variable, and I had to put
a file in the root directory anyway...)  And then it didn't like the
makefile that came with the sample programs from the book I was using.

Rob
 
--- Xblat