what is your favorite building system?

what make/ide do you use by choice and why?

If your make/ide allows you use a certain technique for structuring everything, what technique do you use and why?

bash - it was the default on my system and I've grown used to it. I use it for scripting simple and system specific things. I also use the GNU userland utilities.

GNU Make - generally I use only the most ``portable'' make features.

gcc - my regular compiler.

clang - another compiler that's nice (good to test code with more than one compiler)

vim - very handy editor. Not very good with it, though, compared to some.

git - simple and effective version control.

racket - mostly for SICP exercises but also for some small programs.

qmake - I use at work. Quite okay.

Why not use an IDE? The regular explanation: I want things to be quite explicit and have functionality divided among programs. Scripts are more portable, scalable and repeatable than IDEs.

make has always been enough for me, although I haven't had to deal with very large projects, so I'm not sure how nice it is at those levels (auto tools... ugh). But if you keep your programs small and specific you don't end up with one large project.

GNU, Cmake, Git, Bazaar

urxvt
| bash
| | emacs
| | \ sbcl
| \ make
|   \ gcc

Visual Studio is all I need

>>5
Penis in ass is all you have.

>>2

Same here, except for Racket and Clang.

Eclipse. I'm a HTML engineer.

GCC+Eclipse

GNU make, vim, git, bash and ruby for hacks/prototypes.

dubs builder version 2.1

leiningen

It makes that Jewish ``maven'' bullshit workable by replacing their ENTERPRISE XML with simple Clojure data structures.

It downloads dependencies, it builds your app, launches your Swank server, runs your tests, and more, since it has a plugin system.

neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2012/02/four-interesting-build-tools.html

>>10

My own clone! Well, after repeating ruby with work.

>>2
>Scripts are more portable, scalable and repeatable than IDEs.

As if an IDE isn't just a top level tool that ties all those together.

>>11
Is that an Integrated Dubs Environment?

>>15
Can you tell your ide to run 452 tests on each nested component of your project and report statistics to you on which ones failed?

Can you automate regression testing?

Can you write your project using n languages and have them all compile together using a generic build process specified with build rules, using invocations of compilers (or your own developed tools) that the developers of the ide had never heard of?

Can you generate dependencies on source files and header files for languages that the ide developers don't use?

Can you accidentally delete your entire project by making a typo in your Makefile, or equivalent?

Can you accidentally overwrite your source files with the output of an automated test?

Can you employ conditional logic in your build process that is so complicated that the Makefile itself needs to be test so that it wont suddenly delete everything from a logic error in a corner case?

Can you write Makefiles to automate the testing of your other Makefiles?

Can you use logic in the build process that is so complicated that no one will ever be able to find out what is going wrong when the build process stops working?

Can you write a Makefile that will help figure out the behavior of another Makefile?

Can you use lisp as a part of your build process?

If you are able to do all of these things using your ide, then that's a cool ide. However, real programmers always run the risk of using a faulty makefile that destroys everything.

>>17
I fapped to this.

perl + ptkdb + prove

Is All I Need

I'm a happy script kiddie

FELLOW /PROG/LODYTES LET US SING TOGETHER THE LYRICS IN >>17 TO THE RHAPSODIC STRAINS OF OUR FAVOURITE DISNEY SONG. I THINK THE BEST CHOICE HERE IS THE ONE FROM POCAHONTAS ABOUT THE COLOURS OF THE WIND.

Code::Blocks + MingW

>>20
Lion King. Can you feel the love...

>>22
Can you feel the dubs tonight?

>>23
Nice. 10/10.