Invisible wrote:
> I still don't see why it couldn't default to the name of the source file 
> for the common case where only one is supplied, but anyway...

It could. It doesn't.

> quickly recompile a program each time I edit the source, without having 
> to type in long complex commands.

That's what !! or the up arrow key is for. Lacking that, that's what a shell 
script is for. If your program consists of a single file, you don't need 
Make at all.

>>    Writing a makefile by hand can be somewhat tedious, but you only have
>> to do it once.
> 
> ...except that every time I add another program, I end up having to add 
> another line to the Makefile to handle it.

No you don't. That's what wildcards are for.

> I've got half a dozen trivial little C++ programs, and I want to be able 
> to quickly recompile any of them. It's frustrating me that it's this 
> difficult to do something so trivial.

It's a one-line shell script to recompile every .c++ file into the 
corresponding executable file name.

>>    Of course the rules for this to work become very complicated, and 
>> nobody
>> in their right minds would write them by hand. There exist tools to
>> automatically create a makefile from a bunch of source files

Actually, the primary problem with makefiles is actually C's bizarre 
#include rules, where source files depend on other source files which aren't 
evident from looking at the source files.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message