Binaries & Why Makefiles in Python are bad...
There is an even better solution for the majority of users:
don't fix the make system, fix the way of distribution. A
regular user should never be required to compile the
software. It's only practical for small apps anyway. Who
wants to compile KDE, or Mozilla, or OpenOffice?
While I admit that the automake/autoconf/make setup is
far from ideal, I don't see a serious contender for C/C++.
scons is no solution for the simple reason that an IDE won't
be able to parse and understand such a make file. As more
and more people are switching to IDEs (and new
developers coming from the windows world take them for
granted), scons is not applicable for all projects. And only
a solution that beats automake&co in all aspects will be
able to replace it.
ant is a good solution for Java that has all neccessary
properties, but unfortunately building of C/C++ code is
more complicated then Java code...
> How does it compare with say
As the other replier wrote, it is heavy-weight compared to
boost signals. This useful for the purpose of Qt, because
features like introspection of signal and slots are needed
by Qt Designer (GUI dialog editor&more) and QSA/KJS
(ECMAScript engines that can access QObjects). But if you
dont want to write a full Qt application and use the C++
stdlib instead, boost signals are the better choice.
IMHO Qt is its own world. When you work with Qt you
usually don't use stdlib or boost, but only Qt classes. I
definitely prefer it, it is better integrated, better
documented and feels like it has been designed to produce