Z. Somogyi, "Cake: a fifth generation version of make," Australian UNIX system User Group Newsletter 7(6):22-31 (April 1987). Version 1.4 October 7, Version 1.4 October 7,  Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Relations in Software Manufacture - Lamb (1991) (Correct)
....the two; we believe ours would be more efficient, and that system builders would prefer direct specification (where theycan picture what is going on more easily) Other make variants have recognized the need for better abstraction facilities. imake (available with the X11 distribution) and cake[9] both use the C preprocessor,which provides file inclusion, conditional text inclusion, and simple macros. 3.2. FutureWork We have argued that system builders would find our relational mechanisms better than alternatives; to test these claims, we plan to build a prototype tool. Before doing so, ....
Z. Somogyi, "Cake: a fifth generation version of make," Australian UNIX system User Group Newsletter 7(6):22-31 (April 1987). Version 1.4 October 7, Version 1.4 October 7,
Code generation for Mercury - Conway (1994) (4 citations) (Correct)
.... entrymercurymain330 = mercurymain330; entrymercurymain110 = mercurymain110; The process of compiling Mercury source files to mod files, converting mod files to C, creating the initializer files, and compiling them and linking with the Mercury library is currently managed using cake [14], though eventually it will be done by the compiler itself. 5 Performance results In this section we compare the performance of Mercury programs with the performance of programs written in other logic programming languages. We also examine the performance implications of lazy code generation. 5.1 ....
Z. Somogyi. Cake: a fifth generation version of make. Australian Unix system User Group Newsletter, 7(6):22-- 31, April 1987.
A Toolkit for Software Configuration Management - Mahler, Lampen (1988) (3 citations) (Correct)
.... Make, UNIX wouldn tbewhat it is today.However, inthe last years a number of attempts have been made to improve the program in a number of ways, complete reimplementations have been done, and quite a lot of criticism has (respectfully,though) been expressed, of what is considered weaknesses of Make [2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16]. Often, the discontent is related to some kind of specialized new task that Make is put to work on, which it wasn toriginally designed to perform. So, this kind of criticism can also be interpreted as some compliment for a very flexible tool. In [16] it is argued that one of Make smore serious ....
....the flag (macro ) definitions that affect the transformation, and names of all objects that are going to be produced. Make ssyntax for specifying a default transformation rule doesn tprovide for either information. For shape,wechoose to employ a definition syntax, similar to that used by cake [14]. Cake stransformation specifications are based on name variables.For example, a possible rule for compiling C programs is .o: c cc c .c with as variable symbol. Transformation specifications are actually templates for an infinite number of dependencies, each of which is obtained by ....
Zoltan Somogyi, "Cake: A Fifth Generation Version of Make," Australian Unix system User Group Newsletter,vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 22-31, April 1987.
On the design of the Amoeba Configuration Manager - Baalbergen, Verstoep, Tanenbaum (1989) (3 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
Z. Somogyi, "Cake: a Fifth Generation Version of Make," Australian Unix system User Group Newsletter, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 22-31, AUUGN, April 1987.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC