5 ms·

>I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). Do you mean to the shell's comma

>I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). Do you mean to the shell's command-line parameters or the compiler's? Either way whatever state you need you can also give as macro expansions. MACRO := whatever SHELL := /usr/bin/python .RECIPEPREFIX := > .ONESHELL: .PHONY: all .SILENT: all: >foo="$(MACRO)" >print("{}".format(foo)) >print("You can call yur compiler from python if you want. You could even write the build system from OP here if you wanted to") >This can be impractical and error-prone, especially if you add shell AND make syntax on top. Make syntax is just simple macro expansion. Shouldn't be too hard. And no one is forcing you to use a bourne-style shell. You can use Lua, Perl, Python, Javascript, whatever you want. >From within a decent scripting language (e.g. Python) instead You can use Python. >you can simply use the convenient built-in data structures (e.g. list/tuple of str) as command-line parameters for subprocesses. Then do that here. You don't need to reinvent everything just because you dislike one part of an existing solution. This kind of NIH is why there are so many sub par solutions for everything and nothing is compatible with each other.

jstimpfle 9y ago
Macro expansion is not "simple". If anything it's simplistic. Make has a fragile syntax that barely works for simple filenames, and it has a host of cryptic functions with difficult to understand semantics. That it's what is installed on most Unix-style computers isn't an argument against trying to make different/better systems. The point of my post was to show that there isn't much to the fundamentals of Make. And to encourage finding out what is needed and how the weaknesses of Make can be avoided. Most people here seem to agree that the more advanced features of Make (i.e., what goes beyond POSIX Make) should not be used. Make is good for simple uses, since it's good at this: timestamp and DAG based process spawning. For advanced/specialized usage, it's terrible, much like it's the case with sh. I don't want to use it (at least not directly) for larger systems. See, I'm not a proponent of complexity and feature-laden systems at all. I despise C++, for example. But Make's syntax simply does not scale to larger systems. It does not offer solid enough abstractions to build your way up. Just like sh, which does not even have a usable list structure (there is only one list per function call). If what it does is enough for you, that's fine with me. It's not that I am unable to read the GNU Make docs (I have considered them more than once). Make just isn't good for more serious programming, as the proliferation of systems built on top (autoconf, CMake, ...) suggests. History has shown that macros do not scale. To my knowledge the only "macro languages" in widespread use for non-trivial things today are m4 and Tex, and frankly both are a pain to write things in. (While they do have their strengths if used expertly, for simple things). And while that is the case, Make is even less structured than those. Also there is no point in maintaining a plain Makefile if you are on other systems where Make isn't a first class citizen. I also need to generate Visual Studio files, for example. Also, you can set SHELL to another scripting language, but that defeats much of the point of using make in the first place. And again, you still need to spawn processes and transfer state through a fragile text interface. And most languages' syntaxes integrate even worse with Make's than sh does. How do I insert commas between words to generate python lists would be my first question, and frankly I do not want to know the answer. > This kind of NIH is why there are so many sub par solutions for everything and nothing is compatible with each other. It's not true that it's impossible to design a system that was better than Make. But before a system can be evaluated, one must decide what the system should be good at in the first place. I want a system with decidedly different strengths than Make. Having one syntax that sucks but is built-in and available everywhere is not a goal for me. And the "compatibility" argument is just not there, sorry. Yes, I require python, but that's it. I wrote a simple script that just runs and build. Nothing wrong with that.
- lolikoisuru 9y ago
  >Make has a fragile syntax that barely works for simple filenames It works perfectly fine with things other than space. >and it has a host of cryptic functions with difficult to understand semantics This is why the GNU Make has a fantastic manual, I suggest you check it out: https://gnu.org/s/make/manual https://gnu.org/s/make/manual >That it's what is installed on most Unix-style computers isn't an argument against trying to make different/better systems. You aren't making a better system though. You're making a worse, less flexible, less understood, system that no one can hire person to work for and that won't be useful at any workplace. If you really wanted to improve over make you'd be making a general purpose tool that isn't targeting any specific project or language. Alas, this has jack shit to do with the comment you're replying to. Let's deal with the issues we've been talking about before shifting the goalpost. >Also, you can set SHELL to another scripting language, but that defeats much of the point of using make in the first place. It still gives you a standard interface that packagers and users would expect for build software and you don't have to rewrite your DAG every time by hand. >And again, you still need to spawn processes and transfer state through a fragile text interface. You break the task into multiple parts so you hopefully don't have to run it all every time. Text files aren't really any more fragile than any other way to tranfer the state, just write a json or whatever format you like. >And most languages' syntaxes integrate even worse with Make's than sh does. What integration do you want that you had in your silly hand written one? >How do I insert commas between words to generate python lists would be my first question, and frankly I do not want to know the answer. You can either construct a macro to do this or you can just give the data space delimited to python and change the spaces to commas there. Surely you know how to do it with python so why are you insisting on doing it with make? >It's not true that it's impossible to design a system that was better than Make. Of course it's possible. Too bad no one has actually attempted it. >And the "compatibility" argument is just not there, sorry. Yes, I require python, but that's it. I wrote a simple script that just runs and build. Nothing wrong with that. You also require your own library. Most people probably don't have this installed. Also if you wrote this at a company and left then they'd have a half-baked build system and they cannot hire anyone that's familiar with it.
  - jstimpfle 9y ago

jstimpfle 9y ago

Macro expansion is not "simple". If anything it's simplistic. Make has a fragile syntax that barely works for simple filenames, and it has a host of cryptic functions with difficult to understand semantics. That it's what is installed on most Unix-style computers isn't an argument against trying to make different/better systems. The point of my post was to show that there isn't much to the fundamentals of Make. And to encourage finding out what is needed and how the weaknesses of Make can be avoided. Most people here seem to agree that the more advanced features of Make (i.e., what goes beyond POSIX Make) should not be used. Make is good for simple uses, since it's good at this: timestamp and DAG based process spawning. For advanced/specialized usage, it's terrible, much like it's the case with sh. I don't want to use it (at least not directly) for larger systems. See, I'm not a proponent of complexity and feature-laden systems at all. I despise C++, for example. But Make's syntax simply does not scale to larger systems. It does not offer solid enough abstractions to build your way up. Just like sh, which does not even have a usable list structure (there is only one list per function call). If what it does is enough for you, that's fine with me. It's not that I am unable to read the GNU Make docs (I have considered them more than once). Make just isn't good for more serious programming, as the proliferation of systems built on top (autoconf, CMake, ...) suggests. History has shown that macros do not scale. To my knowledge the only "macro languages" in widespread use for non-trivial things today are m4 and Tex, and frankly both are a pain to write things in. (While they do have their strengths if used expertly, for simple things). And while that is the case, Make is even less structured than those. Also there is no point in maintaining a plain Makefile if you are on other systems where Make isn't a first class citizen. I also need to generate Visual Studio files, for example. Also, you can set SHELL to another scripting language, but that defeats much of the point of using make in the first place. And again, you still need to spawn processes and transfer state through a fragile text interface. And most languages' syntaxes integrate even worse with Make's than sh does. How do I insert commas between words to generate python lists would be my first question, and frankly I do not want to know the answer. > This kind of NIH is why there are so many sub par solutions for everything and nothing is compatible with each other. It's not true that it's impossible to design a system that was better than Make. But before a system can be evaluated, one must decide what the system should be good at in the first place. I want a system with decidedly different strengths than Make. Having one syntax that sucks but is built-in and available everywhere is not a goal for me. And the "compatibility" argument is just not there, sorry. Yes, I require python, but that's it. I wrote a simple script that just runs and build. Nothing wrong with that.

lolikoisuru 9y ago
>Make has a fragile syntax that barely works for simple filenames It works perfectly fine with things other than space. >and it has a host of cryptic functions with difficult to understand semantics This is why the GNU Make has a fantastic manual, I suggest you check it out: https://gnu.org/s/make/manual https://gnu.org/s/make/manual >That it's what is installed on most Unix-style computers isn't an argument against trying to make different/better systems. You aren't making a better system though. You're making a worse, less flexible, less understood, system that no one can hire person to work for and that won't be useful at any workplace. If you really wanted to improve over make you'd be making a general purpose tool that isn't targeting any specific project or language. Alas, this has jack shit to do with the comment you're replying to. Let's deal with the issues we've been talking about before shifting the goalpost. >Also, you can set SHELL to another scripting language, but that defeats much of the point of using make in the first place. It still gives you a standard interface that packagers and users would expect for build software and you don't have to rewrite your DAG every time by hand. >And again, you still need to spawn processes and transfer state through a fragile text interface. You break the task into multiple parts so you hopefully don't have to run it all every time. Text files aren't really any more fragile than any other way to tranfer the state, just write a json or whatever format you like. >And most languages' syntaxes integrate even worse with Make's than sh does. What integration do you want that you had in your silly hand written one? >How do I insert commas between words to generate python lists would be my first question, and frankly I do not want to know the answer. You can either construct a macro to do this or you can just give the data space delimited to python and change the spaces to commas there. Surely you know how to do it with python so why are you insisting on doing it with make? >It's not true that it's impossible to design a system that was better than Make. Of course it's possible. Too bad no one has actually attempted it. >And the "compatibility" argument is just not there, sorry. Yes, I require python, but that's it. I wrote a simple script that just runs and build. Nothing wrong with that. You also require your own library. Most people probably don't have this installed. Also if you wrote this at a company and left then they'd have a half-baked build system and they cannot hire anyone that's familiar with it.
- jstimpfle 9y ago