Re: Compilation in C and ADA

[Francis Belliveau <f.belliveau@comcast.net>]

A lot of good comments that I pretty much agree with, but there is a small difference of opinion and I am feeling incompletely understood.

1. I agree that most projects should have a makefile, regardless of the language(s) used, or the number of files that need to be "built".

2. Yes, the functional execution of the default is doing a good job of saying what it is looking for and why it is not functioning.  It says it is calling make and cannot find a makefile.

3. As far as which compiler to use, you might as well assume "gcc" since "make" is not always there either.  There are many flavors of make that "make -k" would not be compatible with.

The basic disagreement is that "make" or "build" is not synonymous with "compile".  I do consider both make" and "build" synonymous with each other in this context.

Compile is but one step toward building or making an executable or a project.  A makefile that only compiles sources without combining them together into a unit, such as a library, archive, or executable, is not worth writing.

Yes, many compilers, gcc included, can be fed a complex command line to compile a single file and turn it into an executable application.  However, even though you would be using a compiler to perform the function, that function is a "make" or "build" fiction that includes "compile" as one of the steps.

At this point I am either beating a dead horse, or trying to convince some of you that I am right when you will never agree.  I feel like I have said the same thing twice so if you do not agree with me then we should just agree to disagree and drop things there so that we do not turn this into some sort of war over what some readers may consider to be minor semantics.

No offense meant to any of you and none taken by me at this point.

73 to all,
Fran