I like Make since it's able to build a repository with 17k .o files, 80 .a archives, and 661 .com executables from scratch in under a minute on one personal computer (if the kernel page cache is warm). I wrote a couple small helper commands to make the make config more manageable, like package.com, mkdeps.com, compile.com, ar.com, zipobj.com, and runit.com.
The reason why Make works for me, is because I think the root cause of needing things like Autoconf and Cmake is because most projects need to depend on seven different C libraries. I decided that, rather than focusing on writing a better build config, I'd rather use an unfancy build system and instead devote my energy towards having a single C library that runs on all seven of the platforms I'm targeting. I owe a lot of thanks to projects like musl, dlmalloc, dtoa, llvm, etc. from whom I borrowed source code. That enabled me to abstract portability at the libc level, rather than punting to #ifdefs and configs.
I like Make since it's able to build a repository with 17k .o files, 80 .a archives, and 661 .com executables from scratch in under a minute on one personal computer (if the kernel page cache is warm). I wrote a couple small helper commands to make the make config more manageable, like package.com, mkdeps.com, compile.com, ar.com, zipobj.com, and runit.com.
The reason why Make works for me, is because I think the root cause of needing things like Autoconf and Cmake is because most projects need to depend on seven different C libraries. I decided that, rather than focusing on writing a better build config, I'd rather use an unfancy build system and instead devote my energy towards having a single C library that runs on all seven of the platforms I'm targeting. I owe a lot of thanks to projects like musl, dlmalloc, dtoa, llvm, etc. from whom I borrowed source code. That enabled me to abstract portability at the libc level, rather than punting to #ifdefs and configs.