Talk:Make (software)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / CompSci Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}} Linux Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

The sentence beginning “Make is widely used…” appears grammatically ambiguous. I believe it intends to list three categories of alternatives (dependency‑based tools, compilers, and IDE‑based build systems). Would it be acceptable to clarify this by splitting the sentence or adjusting the punctuation? LeeRandolphKeller (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply