Revolutionize your code reviews with AI. CodeRabbit offers PR summaries, code walkthroughs, 1-click suggestions, and AST-based analysis. Boost productivity and code quality across all major languages with each PR. Learn more →
Autodafe Alternatives
Similar projects and alternatives to autodafe
-
-
CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit: AI Code Reviews for Developers. Revolutionize your code reviews with AI. CodeRabbit offers PR summaries, code walkthroughs, 1-click suggestions, and AST-based analysis. Boost productivity and code quality across all major languages with each PR.
-
spack
A flexible package manager that supports multiple versions, configurations, platforms, and compilers.
-
st
build of the suckless simple terminal with patches for alpha, font2, copyurl, openclipboard, invert, appsync, xresources, scrollback, w3m, keyboard select, boxdraw (by mrdotx)
autodafe discussion
autodafe reviews and mentions
-
Hitting every branch on the way down
Seems like precisely the sort of thing ESR's new de-autotools tool is designed to eliminate. https://gitlab.com/esr/autodafe
- De-Autoconfiscation (Eric Raymond)
- GNU Autoconf is not replaceable in any practical sense
-
Autodafe: "freeing your freeing your project from the clammy grip of autotools."
> entry points
I was curious where this was from, so I looked at https://gitlab.com/esr/autodafe/-/blob/master/de-autoconfisc...
As someone who targets clang/gcc/msvc/icc, I don't see much value in these defines. Let's pick on HAVE_STRDUP: what's the point?
If it's always defined on your target platforms, just use the stdlib unconditionally - the define is pointless.
If it's never defined on your target platforms, you'll have to roll an alternative of your own no matter what - the define is pointless.
So the presumed theoretical use case for this is if you sometimes want to define your own, and sometimes want to use the standard library. But do I actually want that? Rarely. Very rarely. If I care to target old systems, I'd generally rather unconditionally define my own version that doesn't conflict with the standard library, that gets tested and used in all builds on all platforms - it'll be less code than adding a bunch of #ifdef soup, and it'll be less brittle - no "works on my machine but fails on the build server" nonsense because of a typo in sometimes-dead code.
That leaves one even narrower use case which isn't entirely theoretical: wanting to backport a modern codebase to an "ancient" toolchain/stdlib via polyfills without touching the modern codebase or the toolchain/stdlib. That approach has it's niches, but... it is worth emphasizing, niches.
-
A note from our sponsor - CodeRabbit
coderabbit.ai | 3 Nov 2024