🚀 go-pugleaf

Glauber Ribeiro writes:
>
>(5) The best of the non-compatibles: BORLAND MAKE
>
>     If you own Turbo Pascal/C/Assembler, you probably have 
>Borland's make as well. It is not unix-compatible, but it's fast, 
>easy to use and efficient. Give it a try. The documentation is 
>almost non-existent, except for pages 173-205 of Turbo Assembler 
>Reference Guide. You need to read those pages, because it works a 
>bit differently from unix make. One very good point is the
>way it handles "response files" for the linker.

One nice thing about Borland MAKE, at least if you are using
Borland/Turbo C or Turbo Assembler, is that it *supposedly* automatically
does dependency checks for include files.  Borland has extended the
OBJ file format to keep track of all files included by a module.
This lets you have much smaller makefiles than you would under
a standard make utility.

The downside to Borland MAKE, as has already been mentioned, is
that the documentation really stinks.  It is not even clearly
stated which Borland products include the autodependency
information (I know C does, but TASM?).  In classic Borland
style, the documentation starts with a simplistic example from
which you are supposed to be able to learn the program through
induction.

Another non-standard MAKE utility worth mentioning is built-in
to the shareware Unity programmer's editor/environment.  I like
Unity in general, but I would hesitate to reccommend it unless
there has been a major update recently.  But the MAKE feature
is neat.  It uses a syntax which is more natural--you specify
files in the order that they will be compiled.  The "EXE"
dependency list, which usually results in running a linker, is always
listed last.  Nice and simple.  There are other simplifications
as well, and the whole thing is fully documented in only a few
pages.  (BTW, does anyone know if Unity is still a supported product,
seeing as there have been no new versions since 1990?).

--
James Hague   
exuhag@exu.ericsson.se