8 ms·

I agree with the author - for C/C++ projects. The module system in C and C++ is pushed out of the compiler and into the build tool. This means make (which is si

by RX14 9y ago

I agree with the author - for C/C++ projects. The module system in C and C++ is pushed out of the compiler and into the build tool. This means make (which is simple) is insufficient to easily correctly implement the logic to build C/C++ projects of more than a few files. However, a lot of other commenters in this thread have mentioned using make to manage their JS builds. JS build tools tend to work on whole directories of files together, and as such its fairly easy to compose these tools without a lot of logic in the build tool, and here make excells because its ubiquitous and simple. We use a makefile for building crystal and its simple and works great. Make isnt useless, its just useless in the world it was created in.

sureaboutthis 9y ago
Then why does your Linux/BSD/Unix operating system use it, including every piece of software installed on it?
- Jyaif 9y ago
  > Then why does your Linux/BSD/Unix operating system use it Because many old programmers don't want to change their habit. > including every piece of software installed on it? Look up ninja.
  - Annatar 9y ago
    That’s right, I don’t want to change something powerful which works really well because someone finds it hard to understand (lacking the prerequisite knowledge) or even worse, wants instant gratification and isn’t willing to master it. That’s like wanting to design a CPU accelerator without wanting to learn how to design electrical circuits. Of course I’m going to say no!, I don’t want to change the tool! If learning this stuff is too hard or not interesting to one, then one ought to consider doing something else for a living. We have tools like Maven and Ant and Scons and CMake because someone didn’t get Make and shell but they thought they did. Now I’m stuck with toy build tools which use unnecessary dependencies (like Java and .NET and Python) and only do as much as their programmer could imagine, limited by that programmer’s imagination (and experience). You bet your patootie I’m going to say NO! I don’t want to be stuck with a toy, someone’s misunderstanding of Make.
- JdeBP 9y ago
  Not every piece of software installed on my BSD/Linux operating systems uses make. (-:

by RX14 9y ago

sureaboutthis 9y ago

Then why does your Linux/BSD/Unix operating system use it, including every piece of software installed on it?

Jyaif 9y ago
> Then why does your Linux/BSD/Unix operating system use it Because many old programmers don't want to change their habit. > including every piece of software installed on it? Look up ninja.
- Annatar 9y ago
  That’s right, I don’t want to change something powerful which works really well because someone finds it hard to understand (lacking the prerequisite knowledge) or even worse, wants instant gratification and isn’t willing to master it. That’s like wanting to design a CPU accelerator without wanting to learn how to design electrical circuits. Of course I’m going to say no!, I don’t want to change the tool! If learning this stuff is too hard or not interesting to one, then one ought to consider doing something else for a living. We have tools like Maven and Ant and Scons and CMake because someone didn’t get Make and shell but they thought they did. Now I’m stuck with toy build tools which use unnecessary dependencies (like Java and .NET and Python) and only do as much as their programmer could imagine, limited by that programmer’s imagination (and experience). You bet your patootie I’m going to say NO! I don’t want to be stuck with a toy, someone’s misunderstanding of Make.
JdeBP 9y ago
Not every piece of software installed on my BSD/Linux operating systems uses make. (-: