3 ms·
"make in $language" is not a waste if sudendly you can "x install your framework" and get it without additional setup, and crossplateform. It's not a waste if
by sametmax 9y ago
"make in $language" is not a waste if sudendly you can "x install your framework" and get it without additional setup, and crossplateform.
It's not a waste if you can leverage what your teams existing knowledge instead of learning the quirks and tricks of make.
It's not a waste if you can use your existing tooling (editor plugins, debuggers, unit test frameworks...) to process your build files.
- matejn 9y agoI believe "x install your framework" is the job of a package manager, not a build tool. I don't see how your argument holds ground. If everyone used make, tooling would support it, and you wouldn't need to learn the "quirks and tricks" of a dozen other systems. The problem with make is that it's not portable, since it needs to call system specific binaries, like rm(1) vs del. There's also the BSD vs GNU divide. Other than that, a newfangled tool like gulp doesn't even have a clean one liner for copying one file to a different location with a different name. It's absurd.
- dahauns 9y ago>gulp doesn't even have a clean one liner for copying one file to a different location with a different name ?? gulp.src("srcfile") .pipe(rename("destfile")) .pipe(gulp.dest("destloc")); What's the problem?
- matejn 9y agoHow is that a one liner? Compare to: cp srcfile destloc/destfile Edit: In addition, the above gulp command reports success even if the file doesn't exist. If you want to check that, you need to import another library and expand the command with another pipe.
- flukus 9y agoWell it could be a one liner, but you're not wrong, the Unix tools are way more terse and we'll known than the random $language versions of make. A few of the .net ones (Nant, msbuild, psake) are ridiculously complicated to do something like sed for instance.