[Mono-list] New snapshot of prj2make-sharp v 0.12
Francisco T. Martinez
Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:11:10 -0500
The most important reason why I still believe that nmake.exe is viable,
has to do with its availability. Nmake is still bundled with the .NET
Framework SDK 1.1, MS Platform SDK and Visual Studio .NET 2003. Both of
these Microsoft SDKs may be downloaded by anyone free of charge.
It has been my experience that most of the production servers running MS
Windows in corporate America tend to have a very limited selection of
development tools installed (Cygwin, etc.).
You may find reference information for nmake.exe here:
Finally, to me, it is all about having as many options and choices as
Jonathan Pryor wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 11:13, Timothy Parez wrote:
>>What is the difference between
>>make, gmake and nmake ?
>For make vs. gmake, it depends on what platform you're on. On Linux,
>these are the same program; on BSD and other Unix-like (or Real Unix)
>systems, they're not.
>gmake (GNU make) includes a number of syntax extensions, such as
>immediate variable assignment (foo := bar). Check the GNU make info
>manual (``info make''), and read the Features node. A summary of some
>differences between gmake and make: VPATH variable handling; pattern
>rules using %; conditional execution; and others.
>nmake is Microsoft's make equivalent, and is very different. For
>example, all makes permit "deferred" variable assignment:
> foo = bar
>But conditional execution varies wildly. GNU make has ``ifeq...endif'',
>while nmake uses !IF ... !END IF.
>GNU make also has a number of built-in functions such as $(strip),
>$(patsubst), $(findstring), etc. nmake has no equivalent (that I'm
> - Jon
>Mono-list maillist - Monoemail@example.com