4 ms·
And tup for the last 10. Lots of people in this thread complaining about Make's syntax might want to check it out; it has a nice, simple "inputs |> command |> o
by haldean 9y ago
And tup for the last 10. Lots of people in this thread complaining about Make's syntax might want to check it out; it has a nice, simple "inputs |> command |> outputs" syntax, a similar "output the DAG" mode to Cr, and defaults to parallelism.
http://gittup.org/tup/ http://gittup.org/tup/
- aidenn0 9y agoThat's funny because I would list tup's syntax as a negative for an otherwise very useful tool. Also, Tup is much more single-purpose than Make or (from a quick readthrough) Cr. It is very strongly focused on the "N files in, 1 file out" for compilation, and specializes at that to the point of not doing other things. As far as a minimal "better make" I find redo to be the best. Make is a weird combination of the shell and makefile languages, but redo boils it down to just a single language and manages to handle dependency of build rules in an elegant manner.
- dilap 9y agocurious, which variant of redo do you actually use?
- CJefferson 9y agoI love tup, but I find too many places where it doesn't work to use it for things I distribute (sometimes fuse fails, doesn't work on Linux subsystem for Windows, flakey on full windows).