Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: software disenchantment Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:54:52 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <80b8860c-aebf-4041-aee8-6e8fd515fa0f@googlegroups.com> <8yuvD.13782$5A2.519@fx25.am4> <4TuvD.69650$522.16377@fx35.am4> <32vvD.21117$134.7822@fx03.am4> <7tIvD.18127$RM7.167@fx24.am4> <8SLvD.288744$Ac3.256427@fx45.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2e98a4ae6d37959bf94050b86ea67cbf"; logging-data="15635"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f4xVlAvcw1gBa6ASGgtzs" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:G0l0tN/wx9KBIETGnXGpv40sVnY= sha1:p2LzDiZgZHaPZxljPqmKJSeEdU8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:136686 Bart writes: [...] > How am I criticising it here? > > It just seems odd that every single source file you submit to a /C/ > compiler [except mine, naturally], needs the .c extension otherwise it > hasn't got a clue what you had in mind. > > Yet with 'make', you don't even need to bother with the filename. There are good reasons for that, which I would explain if I thought you were interested. [...] > It's OK, I'm not going to use it. It's one of these programs that's > never going to work for me. If you're not going to use it, that's fine, but your ignorant comments about it are annoying. Being ignorant about it ok. Being ignorant and complaining that it doesn't work the way you think it should is odd. > I recently upgraded to gcc 8.1.0 on Windows and for a change, everything > was included: standard headers, linker, libraries etc. > > But there is no program called 'make', unless it's the 3.7MB executable > called 'gnatmake.exe'. No, that's not "make". It's the gcc Ada compiler front-end. I could explain further, but you're not interested. "make" is not part of gcc. It's a separate tool. Someone who doesn't intend to use make would not be as concerned as you seem to be by the fact that it's not included in whatever bundle you installed on Windows. Those of us who use "make" either already have it, or know how to find and install it, or can find out easily enough. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"