My thoughts exactly. I thought this was going to be some new thing, but it's just yet another reason that I'll stick with Makefiles.

▲ flohofwoe 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Do your Makefiles work across Linux, macOS and Windows (without WSL or MingW), GCC, Clang and MSVC, or allow loading the project into an IDE like Xcode or Visual Studio though? That's why meta-build-systems like cmake were created, not to be a better GNU Make.

▲ uecker 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There is something fundamentally wrong with Windows or Visual Studio that it requires ugly solutions.

▲ flohofwoe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ok, then just cl.exe instead of gcc or clang. Completely different set of command line options from gcc and clang, but that's fine. C/C++ build tooling needs to be able to deal with different toolchains. The diversity of C/C++ toolchains is a strength, not a weakness :)

One nice feature of MSVC is that you can describe the linker dependencies in the source files (via #pragma comment(lib, ...)), this enables building fairly complex single-file tools trivially without a build system like this:

   cl mytool.c

...without having to specify system dependencies like kernel32 etc... on the cmdline.

▲ delta_p_delta_x 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Windows and Visual Studio solutions are perfectly fine. MSBuild is a declarative build syntax in XML, it's not very different from a makefile.

	▲	uecker 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		XML is already terrible. But the main problem seems to be that they created something similar but incompatible to make.