If I have a package with several executables, which I initially build using cabal build. Now I change one file that impacts just one executable, cabal seems to take about a second or two to examine each executable to see if it's impacted or not. On the other hand, make, given an equivalent number of executables and source files, will determine in a fraction of a second what needs to be recompiled. Why the huge difference? Is there a reason, cabal can't just build its own version of a makefile and go from there?
Disclaimer: I'm not familiar enough with Haskell or make internals to give technical specifics, but some web searching does offer some insight that lines up with my proposal (trying to avoid eliciting opinions by providing references). Also, I'm assuming your makefile is calling ghc, as cabal apparently would.
Proposal: I believe there could be several key reasons, but the main one is that make is written in C, whereas cabal is written in Haskell. This would be coupled with superior dependency checking from make (although I'm not sure how to prove this without looking at the source code). Other supporting reasons, as found on the web:
cabal tries to do a lot more than simply compiling, e.g. appears to take steps with regard to packaging (https://www.haskell.org/cabal/)
cabal is written in haskell, although the run time is written in C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Haskell_Compiler)
Again, not being overly familiar with make internals, make may simply have a faster dependency checking mechanism, thereby better tracking these changes. I point this out because from the OP it sounds like there is a significant enough difference to where cabal may be doing a blanket check against all dependencies. I suspect this would be the primary reason for the speed difference, if true.
At any rate, these are open source and can be downloaded from their respective sites (haskell.org/cabal/ and savannah.gnu.org/projects/make/) allowing anyone to examine specifics of the implementations.
It is also likely one could see a lot of variance in speed based upon the switches passed to the compilers in use.
HTH at least point you in the right direction.
I'm working on a Python/Haskell project and I'm looking for alternatives to Makefile. Obvious choices are Python SCons and Haskell Shake. Since I have no experience with either of them, I'd like to ask if there is any comparison of their drawbacks and advantages.
Update: The project has somewhat complex requirements for building:
Let the user configure the build - like options to enable/disable, paths to tools etc.
There are both Haskell and Python files generated at compile time. Their dependencies should work properly.
There are multiple Haskell programs that share most of the source files. I'd like so that:
it's possible to build each one individually, not building the sources that aren't needed;
source files aren't built multiple times when compiling multiple programs;
yet achieve parallelism during compilation, if possible.
Check for several installed programs on target systems and their paths (like python, flock etc.)
Check for dependencies on target systems, both Python, Haskell.
Parametrize the build according to the dependencies - if the dependencies for testing are missing, it should still be possible to build the project, skipping the tests (and informing the user about it).
There is a Why Shake? document that gives reasons to chose Shake over other build systems, but it does not focus on a comparison to SCons.
Update: All of your requirements seem easy enough to express in Shake (ask on StackOverflow if you get stuck with any of them). As to Shake vs SCons:
Shake is particularly good at dealing with generated files with dependencies that cannot be statically predicted, particularly if you are generating the files from programs you compile.
Building the Haskell parts of your project is likely to be harder than building the Python (since Haskell has a richer structure and more complex compiler). Using Shake makes it easier to tap into existing examples of compiling Haskell and use libraries for parsing Haskell if you need it.
There is a SCons wiki page that compares it to other build tools, unfortunately there is no comparison there with Haskell/Shake.
Also, this question may help.
SCons really shines as compared to other tools (especially make and cmake) by its Python syntax, and its implicit dependency system that is very accurate and easy to use.
I'm having to build gnu make from source for reasons too complicated to explain here.
I noticed to build it I require the make command itself, in the traditional fashion:
./configure
make install
So what if I didn't have the make binary already? Where did the first ever make binary come from?
From the same place the first gcc binary came from.
The first make was created probably using a shell script to do the build. After that, make would "make" itself.
It's a notable achievement in systems development when the platform becomes "self-hosting". That is the platform can build itself.
Things like "make make" and "gcc gcc.c".
Many language writers will create their language in another language (say, C) and when they have moved it far enough along, they will use that original bootstrap compiler to write a new compiler in the original language. Finally, they discard the original.
Back in the day, a friend was working on a debugger for OS/2, notable for being a multi-tasking operating system at the time. And he would regale about the times when they would be debugging the debugger, and find a bug. So, they would debug the debugger debugging the debugger. It's a novel concept and goes to the heart of computing and abstraction.
Inevitably, it all boils back to when someone keyed in something through a hardwire key pad or some other switches to get an initial program loaded. Then they leveraged that program to do other work, and it all just grows from there.
Stuart Feldman, then at AT&T, wrote the source code for make around the time of 7th Edition UNIX™, and used manual compilation (or maybe a shell script) until make was working well enough to be used to build itself. You can find the UNIX Programmer's Manual for 7th Edition online, and in particular, the original paper describing the original version of make, dated August 1978.
make is just one convenience tool. It is still possible to invoke cc, ld, etc. manually or via other scripting tools.
If you're building GNU make, have a look at build.sh in the source tree after running configure:
# Shell script to build GNU Make in the absence of any `make' program.
# build.sh. Generated from build.sh.in by configure.
Compiling C programs is not the only way to produce an executable file. The first make executable (or more notably the C compiler itself) could for example be an assembly program, or it could be hand coded in machine code. It could also be cross compiled on a completely different system.
The essence of make is that it is a simplified way of running some commands.
To make the first make, the author had to manually act as make, and run gcc or whatever toolset was available, rather than having it run automatically.
I'm trying to write a Haskell program which requires the output of external programs (such as lame, the mp3 encoder). While declaring dependency on a library is easy in cabal, how can one declare dependency on an executable?
You can't currently add a dependency in the .cabal file for external executables, other than a list of known build tools (see build-tools: alex for example).
You can however specify build-type: Configure, and then use a separate configure script to search for any additional binaries (for example, an autoconf-based configure script is perfectly fine, and can be used to set constants in your source).
Note that searching for a runtime dependency -- such as a lame encoder -- at compile time may be a bad idea, as the build and run environments are different on many package systems. It might be a better idea to dynamically search for required binaries at program startup.
For example, hmp3 hunts for mpg321 with
mmpg <- findExecutable (MPG321 :: String)
where MPG321 is the name of the program determined via a ./configure option. For more information, see the haddocks:
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/directory/latest/doc/html/System-Directory.html#v:findExecutable
Recently, I switched my development environment from Windows to Linux. So far, I have only used Visual Studio for C++ development, so many concepts, like make and Autotools, are new to me. I have read the GNU makefile documentation and got almost an idea about it. But I am kind of confused about Autotools.
As far as I know, makefiles are used to make the build process easier.
Why do we need tools like Autotools just for creating the makefiles? Since all knows how to create a makefile, I am not getting the real use of Autotools.
What is the standard? Do we need to use tools like this or would just handwritten makefiles do?
You are talking about two separate but intertwined things here:
Autotools
GNU coding standards
Within Autotools, you have several projects:
Autoconf
Automake
Libtool
Let's look at each one individually.
Autoconf
Autoconf easily scans an existing tree to find its dependencies and create a configure script that will run under almost any kind of shell. The configure script allows the user to control the build behavior (i.e. --with-foo, --without-foo, --prefix, --sysconfdir, etc..) as well as doing checks to ensure that the system can compile the program.
Configure generates a config.h file (from a template) which programs can include to work around portability issues. For example, if HAVE_LIBPTHREAD is not defined, use forks instead.
I personally use Autoconf on many projects. It usually takes people some time to get used to m4. However, it does save time.
You can have makefiles inherit some of the values that configure finds without using automake.
Automake
By providing a short template that describes what programs will be built and what objects need to be linked to build them, Makefiles that adhere to GNU coding standards can automatically be created. This includes dependency handling and all of the required GNU targets.
Some people find this easier. I prefer to write my own makefiles.
Libtool
Libtool is a very cool tool for simplifying the building and installation of shared libraries on any Unix-like system. Sometimes I use it; other times (especially when just building static link objects) I do it by hand.
There are other options too, see StackOverflow question Alternatives to Autoconf and Autotools?.
Build automation & GNU coding standards
In short, you really should use some kind of portable build configuration system if you release your code to the masses. What you use is up to you. GNU software is known to build and run on almost anything. However, you might not need to adhere to such (and sometimes extremely pedantic) standards.
If anything, I'd recommend giving Autoconf a try if you're writing software for POSIX systems. Just because Autotools produce part of a build environment that's compatible with GNU standards doesn't mean you have to follow those standards (many don't!) :) There are plenty of other options, too.
Edit
Don't fear m4 :) There is always the Autoconf macro archive. Plenty of examples, or drop in checks. Write your own or use what's tested. Autoconf is far too often confused with Automake. They are two separate things.
First of all, the Autotools are not an opaque build system but a loosely coupled tool-chain, as tinkertim already pointed out. Let me just add some thoughts on Autoconf and Automake:
Autoconf is the configuration system that creates the configure script based on feature checks that are supposed to work on all kinds of platforms. A lot of system knowledge has gone into its m4 macro database during the 15 years of its existence. On the one hand, I think the latter is the main reason Autotools have not been replaced by something else yet. On the other hand, Autoconf used to be far more important when the target platforms were more heterogeneous and Linux, AIX, HP-UX, SunOS, ..., and a large variety of different processor architecture had to be supported. I don't really see its point if you only want to support recent Linux distributions and Intel-compatible processors.
Automake is an abstraction layer for GNU Make and acts as a Makefile generator from simpler templates. A number of projects eventually got rid of the Automake abstraction and reverted to writing Makefiles manually because you lose control over your Makefiles and you might not need all the canned build targets that obfuscate your Makefile.
Now to the alternatives (and I strongly suggest an alternative to Autotools based on your requirements):
CMake's most notable achievement is replacing AutoTools in KDE. It's probably the closest you can get if you want to have Autoconf-like functionality without m4 idiosyncrasies. It brings Windows support to the table and has proven to be applicable in large projects. My beef with CMake is that it is still a Makefile-generator (at least on Linux) with all its immanent problems (e.g. Makefile debugging, timestamp signatures, implicit dependency order).
SCons is a Make replacement written in Python. It uses Python scripts as build control files allowing very sophisticated techniques. Unfortunately, its configuration system is not on par with Autoconf. SCons is often used for in-house development when adaptation to specific requirements is more important than following conventions.
If you really want to stick with Autotools, I strongly suggest to read Recursive Make Considered Harmful (archived) and write your own GNU Makefile configured through Autoconf.
The answers already provided here are good, but I'd strongly recommend not taking the advice to write your own makefile if you have anything resembling a standard C/C++ project. We need the autotools instead of handwritten makefiles because a standard-compliant makefile generated by automake offers a lot of useful targets under well-known names, and providing all these targets by hand is tedious and error-prone.
Firstly, writing a Makefile by hand seems a great idea at first, but most people will not bother to write more than the rules for all, install and maybe clean. automake generates dist, distcheck, clean, distclean, uninstall and all these little helpers. These additional targets are a great boon to the sysadmin that will eventually install your software.
Secondly, providing all these targets in a portable and flexible way is quite error-prone. I've done a lot of cross-compilation to Windows targets recently, and the autotools performed just great. In contrast to most hand-written files, which were mostly a pain in the ass to compile. Mind you, it is possible to create a good Makefile by hand. But don't overestimate yourself, it takes a lot of experience and knowledge about a bunch of different systems, and automake creates great Makefiles for you right out of the box.
Edit: And don't be tempted to use the "alternatives". CMake and friends are a horror to the deployer because they aren't interface-compatible to configure and friends. Every half-way competent sysadmin or developer can do great things like cross-compilation or simple things like setting a prefix out of his head or with a simple --help with a configure script. But you are damned to spend an hour or three when you have to do such things with BJam. Don't get me wrong, BJam is probably a great system under the hood, but it's a pain in the ass to use because there are almost no projects using it and very little and incomplete documentation. autoconf and automake have a huge lead here in terms of established knowledge.
So, even though I'm a bit late with this advice for this question: Do yourself a favor and use the autotools and automake. The syntax might be a bit strange, but they do a way better job than 99% of the developers do on their own.
For small projects or even for large projects that only run on one platform, handwritten makefiles are the way to go.
Where autotools really shine is when you are compiling for different platforms that require different options. Autotools is frequently the brains behind the typical
./configure
make
make install
compilation and install steps for Linux libraries and applications.
That said, I find autotools to be a pain and I've been looking for a better system. Lately I've been using bjam, but that also has its drawbacks. Good luck finding what works for you.
Autotools are needed because Makefiles are not guaranteed to work the same across different platforms. If you handwrite a Makefile, and it works on your machine, there is a good chance that it won't on mine.
Do you know what unix your users will be using? Or even which distribution of Linux? Do you know where they want software installed? Do you know what tools they have, what architecture they want to compile on, how many CPUs they have, how much RAM and disk might be available to them?
The *nix world is a cross-platform landscape, and your build and install tools need to deal with that.
Mind you, the auto* tools date from an earlier epoch, and there are many valid complaints about them, but the several projects to replace them with more modern alternatives are having trouble developing a lot of momentum.
Lots of things are like that in the *nix world.
Autotools is a disaster.
The generated ./configure script checks for features that have not been present on any Unix system for last 20 years or so. To do this, it spends a huge amount of time.
Running ./configure takes for ages. Although modern server CPUs can have even dozens of cores, and there may be several such CPUs per server, the ./configure is single-threaded. We still have enough years of Moore's law left that the number of CPU cores will go way up as a function of time. So, the time ./configure takes will stay approximately constant whereas parallel build times reduce by a factor of 2 every 2 years due to Moore's law. Or actually, I would say the time ./configure takes might even increase due to increasing software complexity taking advantage of improved hardware.
The mere act of adding just one file to your project requires you to run automake, autoconf and ./configure which will take ages, and then you'll probably find that since some important files have changed, everything will be recompiled. So add just one file, and make -j${CPUCOUNT} recompiles everything.
And about make -j${CPUCOUNT}. The generated build system is a recursive one. Recursive make has for a long amount of time been considered harmful.
Then when you install the software that has been compiled, you'll find that it doesn't work. (Want proof? Clone protobuf repository from Github, check out commit 9f80df026933901883da1d556b38292e14836612, install it to a Debian or Ubuntu system, and hey presto: protoc: error while loading shared libraries: libprotoc.so.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory -- since it's in /usr/local/lib and not /usr/lib; workaround is to do export LD_RUN_PATH=/usr/local/lib before typing make).
The theory is that by using autotools, you could create a software package that can be compiled on Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and other operating systems. The fact? Every non-Linux system to build packages from source has numerous patch files in their repository to work around autotools bugs. Just take a look at e.g. FreeBSD /usr/ports: it's full of patches. So, it would have been as easy to create a small patch for a non-autotools build system on a per project basis than to create a small patch for an autotools build system on a per project basis. Or perhaps even easier, as standard make is much easier to use than autotools.
The fact is, if you create your own build system based on standard make (and make it inclusive and not recursive, following the recommendations of the "Recursive make considered harmful" paper), things work in a much better manner. Also, your build time goes down by an order of magnitude, perhaps even two orders of magnitude if your project is very small project of 10-100 C language files and you have dozens of cores per CPU and multiple CPUs. It's also much easier to interface custom automatic code generation tools with a custom build system based on standard make instead of dealing with the m4 mess of autotools. With standard make, you can at least type a shell command into the Makefile.
So, to answer your question: why use autotools? Answer: there is no reason to do so. Autotools has been obsolete since when commercial Unix has become obsolete. And the advent of multi-core CPUs has made autotools even more obsolete. Why programmers haven't realized that yet, is a mystery. I'll happily use standard make on my build systems, thank you. Yes, it takes some amount of work to generate the dependency files for C language header inclusion, but the amount of work is saved by not having to fight with autotools.
I dont feel I am an expert to answer this but still give you a bit analogy with my experience.
Because upto some extent it is similar to why we should write Embedded Codes in C language(High Level language) rather then writing in Assembly Language.
Both solves the same purpose but latter is more lenghty, tedious ,time consuming and more error prone(unless you know ISA of the processor very well) .
Same is the case with Automake tool and writing your own makefile.
Writing Makefile.am and configure.ac is pretty simple than writing individual project Makefile.