stored locally and then linked in. This build of libraries took a little time, but typically only happened once. Subsequent incremental builds picked up the libraries, checked their dependencies just in case, but since they hadn’t changed didn’t rebuild them. Thus incremental builds typically took only a few minutes.
The benefits of automatic dependency checking and ensuring that the correct software was built and tested and no build related problems surfaced subsequently were immense.
IDEs
These days, a lot of development is done using Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) ranging from Eclipse to Visual Studio in its various forms.
IDEs have many benefits in terms of time saving conveniences for developers. The ability to check stuff out and back in can be a great boon. Another classic feature is the ability to compile and build within the IDE, showing errors and a double-click taking you to the line where a compile error occurred. Also the ability to debug easily, set break points, etc. All these are very useful features and make developers much more effective.
There have been more than a few problems in the past when vendors have created a wonderful IDE but haven’t thought emough about interfaces to other tools, and in particular have provided very limited automation possibilities. For example, the information which drives the build process may be stored in proprietary format rather than something like a makefile or similar.
Now it is very convenient and saves a lot of time when developing to be able to hit a button and incrementally rebuild the application. How do you repeat the build for the integration or system build? You want to use the same compiler and linker as your developers. It is very seldom that the compiler and linker or equivalents used by the IDE are not callable from the command line or a build script. The problem comes when the IDE wraps up options that are not easily replicated from a build script, or which require maintenance in 2 places – once within the IDE and once in the global build script.
Fortunately, most IDEs support being called from the command line so that it is possible, although sometimes more work than should perhaps be the case, to wrap it up.
Installers
Any system that is going to be deployed needs to be installable. Particularly on Windows this has caused some major issues. In a similar manner to IDEs mentioned above, installers have not always been good citizens in terms of providing automation facilities so that an external build tool can build the complete installer with no manual steps.
In our opinion this is a vital feature, and would automatically exclude an installer from the shortlist if not appropriately supported.
Shared Library Problems
The architectural decision to popularise component based development via DLLs (Dynamic Link Libraries - the equivalent concept exists on Unix and other operating systems) had good intentions but turned out to be flawed. It's nice to think that if many applications share a single DLL and there is a bug in it, that a single upgrade fixes problems in all of the applications. The reality was that an upgrade of a DLL often broke or destabilised existing applications due to lack of backwards compatibility or just not being tested properly. People started programming defensively and putting in start-up checks to ensure that only compatible versions of DLLs were acceptable to their application.
This has been a particular problem on Windows. Some of the reasons for DLLs were:
- Saved disk space (now irrelevant)
- A single upgrade fixed many components (but no testing and masses of








