Talk:Make (software)

Make, C, Unix

I have been part of the software community for fifty years, and I remember something about make that has not been commented upon (or at least I didn't recognize it). Make was part of the C language to build the Unix operating system, and it had the capability to extend the C language with a macro like system that added lexical and syntactic extensions to C. I remember reading code that had been delivered to the military that included some of this sort of C extension and asked the authors how they got the DoD to accept it. Their response was that the make file is part of the C programming environment and therefore this type of language extension was standard C. I do not see anything in this article that could be a C standard extending macro facility. Does anyone remember how this was done? 50.206.176.154 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to the C Preprocessor, which has been part of the C toolchain since 1973, but I would be very surprised if at any time it was somehow part of make. Rather, make is a different tool on that chain. Rp (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm sure it was NOT preprocessor macros. 50.206.176.154 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Make was part of the C language" is not a thing. As far as I know, Make and C are two different things that are often used together. Like peanut butter and chocolate in a peanut butter cup.

Your story: I remember reading code that had been delivered to the military that included some of this sort of C extension and asked the authors how they got the DoD to accept it. Their response was that the make file is part of the C programming environment and therefore this type of language extension was standard C. I'm guessing the contractor was BSing the military and/or you. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Part of the C programming environment: yes. Part of the C language: no way. Rp (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Created April 1976

I have two issues with this: "Make was created by Stuart Feldman in April 1976...".

First, a non-trivial program is (almost) never created in any particular month. It take months to create ... to write. I doubt that Stuart started and completed writing Make in April 1976. Maybe he completed an early version in that month.

Second, apparently, there's some version file that starts with v2.1 dated April 1976. But... versions usually don't start with 2.1. They can, but usually not. When were earlier versions completed?

IMO should say something like: Make was created by Stuart Feldman. The first known version, 2.1, was completed in April 1976. ... even that is a stretch since it assumes that version file is genuine and accurate, but it probably is. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See the changelog. Rp (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the version file I am referring to. What does it mean exactly? Maybe it means that on April 1976 version 2.1 was completed or built or checked-in or something. But, is a version file a reliable source? IDK. Thing is, IMO it does _not_ mean that he created the tool in that month. It begs the question: when was version 2.0 completed? version 1.0? ... Maybe 2.1 was the first version, but that is unusual. My guess is that he started before April 1976. ... it may be heresy, but I wonder whether someone else wrote earlier versions. When I see version history starting at >1, it makes me suspect multiple authors. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)