RE: ILE philosophy

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Scott Mildenberger wrote:

> >   A "real" integrated MAKE tool is a no-brainer as a requirement.  I
> > believe that this is *one* of the reasons that it's taken a
> > long time for
> > ILE to catch on - it's a more difficult environment to
> > manage, but I don't
> > think that it has to be that way.
>
> I don't miss a MAKE tool that much.  I can only think that it would be real
> useful if you bind modules by copy.  Since I don't advocate that approach I
> don't see much need for a MAKE tool.

The real power of make is not just compiling things, it is recognizing
dependencies and building only those things that need to be built.
Programs rely on data files, printer files, screen files, service
programs, etc.  If you change a printer file you need to recompile the
associated program(s) to avoid a level check.  make tracks this for you.
Instead of using CRTPRTF you would use make.  make would compile the
printer file and then automatically recompile those programs that depend
on the printer file.  A CL program just isn't the same thing.

James Rich