4 ms·

> But I just don't understand why we have to have 47 half-built over-complicated build systems > Everyone repeat after me. I don't mean to pick on you specifi

by untog 8y ago

> But I just don't understand why we have to have 47 half-built over-complicated build systems > Everyone repeat after me. I don't mean to pick on you specifically here because this attitude comes up a lot. In short, a lot of people are doing a thing, a thing that you aren't familiar with, and your gut reaction is to say "everyone: stop doing that, and do what I say!". Wait a second and consider that maybe there is a reason why this incredibly large number of developers are using these tools. That perhaps they evaluated various different options and decided that what they are using is more suitable than make. Maybe you could find out.

kazen44 8y ago
> Wait a second and consider that maybe there is a reason why this incredibly large number of developers are using these tools. That perhaps they evaluated various different options and decided that what they are using is more suitable than make. Maybe you could find out. Here we have another fundemental "problem" between dev and ops. The inherent friction because of different areas of concern. Dev's want to build fast and create new features, but sadly (even with the whole devops notion) are usually not thinking about viability in production. Ops people need to keep thing stable, something which is sadly undervalued a lot of times in companies.
- untog 8y ago
  Not really? A lot of build tools are chosen specifically to make the build process more reliable and understandable. For example, build tools like Maven handle dependency management, which is hugely beneficial in ensuring your builds are consistent and work the same in different environments. Makefiles are shell scripts.
  - mancerayder 8y ago
    Not taking sides here but you picked a bad example. Makefiles specifically handle dependency management, but designed from a compiled language perspective. Make sure you build this .so before you build this bin, or that this directory exists, and so forth.
    - untog 8y ago
      That's fair, but it still reinforces the point: Makefiles are great from a compiled language perspective. Other build tools are better from other perspectives. It isn't wrong to choose a tool depending on your needs!
  - colanderman 8y ago
    Makefiles are definitely not shell scripts. Individual recipe lines are executed using Bash by default, but you can change this. (Heck you probably could even get away with Python if you really wanted.) The rest of Make (which is 95% of what's in a Makefile) is its own language, which is actually not too bad for what it's intended for (munging around filenames), and has the flavor of a functional language.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    "Maven handle dependency management" https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Dependency_Version_Requirement_Specification https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Dependency_Version_Require... Don't forget to go the extra mile with your dependency versioning to ensure you actually get repeatable builds.
- notyourday 8y ago
  Put devs on 24x7 escalation above your level-1 ("Is it actually broken?") NOC. Developer attitude would change immediately.
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    Sadly i have seen far too many devs go "you are holding it wrong"...
    - mcguire 8y ago
      "It works for me."
    - notyourday 8y ago
      "You are holding your paycheck wrong"
mcguire 8y ago
"Wait a second and consider that maybe there is a reason why this incredibly large number of developers are using these tools. That perhaps they evaluated various different options and decided that what they are using is more suitable than make. Maybe you could find out." Have you considered that perhaps the previous commentor is familiar with the other tools? Or perhaps that the large number of developers have streamlined their particular workflows for their particular use case and have not considered the flexibility needed for other cases? Or perhaps that there is a cost associated simply with having 47 different build systems?
- w4tson 8y ago
  If the previous commenter was familiar was familiar with 47 build tools and has discounted a lot of them as extraneous. Is he advocating building an npm module with make? What about a jar? Nuget package? Cargo module? Its seems more likely that they’re frustrated about the sheer amount to learn and they probably know make quite well. But there are real advantages to these tools. There’s a lot of vanity libraries out there but not many vanity build tools.
  - megaman22 8y ago
    My real issue is the constant wheel-making impulse, that leaves us with a shattered landscape of people tripping and falling over busted-ass and abandoned wheels. I have a JavaScript front-end project that uses three different package managers, and four different make-analog tools, plus some batch files sprinkled on top to orchestrate the common use cases of this monstrosity. Nothing that we are doing here is that complicated, except for this sea of shitty half-baked ecosystems around these tools, each of which was considered best-of-breed at one point. What we want to do is slurp some text files up, apply some transformations to them, glob them together, run them through the minifier, and dump them into a final output. This is exactly what a decent makefile would fit well for. Instead, I got this, because apparently nobody wants to use anything that isn't the hot new way to do things, and so very few people have even had enough exposure to know that there are tested tools for these kinds of things that existed. The last time I was using make beyond trivial uses was a decade ago in college (incidentally, I actually did build jars with make, easier than fighting Eclipse...). But just knowing that something exists is more than half the battle, although the problem then is that it's frustrating as all hell watching the same ideas cycle round and round and round every couple years.

by untog 8y ago

kazen44 8y ago

> Wait a second and consider that maybe there is a reason why this incredibly large number of developers are using these tools. That perhaps they evaluated various different options and decided that what they are using is more suitable than make. Maybe you could find out. Here we have another fundemental "problem" between dev and ops. The inherent friction because of different areas of concern. Dev's want to build fast and create new features, but sadly (even with the whole devops notion) are usually not thinking about viability in production. Ops people need to keep thing stable, something which is sadly undervalued a lot of times in companies.

untog 8y ago
Not really? A lot of build tools are chosen specifically to make the build process more reliable and understandable. For example, build tools like Maven handle dependency management, which is hugely beneficial in ensuring your builds are consistent and work the same in different environments. Makefiles are shell scripts.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  Not taking sides here but you picked a bad example. Makefiles specifically handle dependency management, but designed from a compiled language perspective. Make sure you build this .so before you build this bin, or that this directory exists, and so forth.
  - untog 8y ago
    That's fair, but it still reinforces the point: Makefiles are great from a compiled language perspective. Other build tools are better from other perspectives. It isn't wrong to choose a tool depending on your needs!
- colanderman 8y ago
  Makefiles are definitely not shell scripts. Individual recipe lines are executed using Bash by default, but you can change this. (Heck you probably could even get away with Python if you really wanted.) The rest of Make (which is 95% of what's in a Makefile) is its own language, which is actually not too bad for what it's intended for (munging around filenames), and has the flavor of a functional language.
- mcguire 8y ago
  "Maven handle dependency management" https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Dependency_Version_Requirement_Specification https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Dependency_Version_Require... Don't forget to go the extra mile with your dependency versioning to ensure you actually get repeatable builds.
notyourday 8y ago
Put devs on 24x7 escalation above your level-1 ("Is it actually broken?") NOC. Developer attitude would change immediately.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Sadly i have seen far too many devs go "you are holding it wrong"...
  - mcguire 8y ago
    "It works for me."
  - notyourday 8y ago
    "You are holding your paycheck wrong"

mcguire 8y ago

"Wait a second and consider that maybe there is a reason why this incredibly large number of developers are using these tools. That perhaps they evaluated various different options and decided that what they are using is more suitable than make. Maybe you could find out." Have you considered that perhaps the previous commentor is familiar with the other tools? Or perhaps that the large number of developers have streamlined their particular workflows for their particular use case and have not considered the flexibility needed for other cases? Or perhaps that there is a cost associated simply with having 47 different build systems?

w4tson 8y ago
If the previous commenter was familiar was familiar with 47 build tools and has discounted a lot of them as extraneous. Is he advocating building an npm module with make? What about a jar? Nuget package? Cargo module? Its seems more likely that they’re frustrated about the sheer amount to learn and they probably know make quite well. But there are real advantages to these tools. There’s a lot of vanity libraries out there but not many vanity build tools.
- megaman22 8y ago
  My real issue is the constant wheel-making impulse, that leaves us with a shattered landscape of people tripping and falling over busted-ass and abandoned wheels. I have a JavaScript front-end project that uses three different package managers, and four different make-analog tools, plus some batch files sprinkled on top to orchestrate the common use cases of this monstrosity. Nothing that we are doing here is that complicated, except for this sea of shitty half-baked ecosystems around these tools, each of which was considered best-of-breed at one point. What we want to do is slurp some text files up, apply some transformations to them, glob them together, run them through the minifier, and dump them into a final output. This is exactly what a decent makefile would fit well for. Instead, I got this, because apparently nobody wants to use anything that isn't the hot new way to do things, and so very few people have even had enough exposure to know that there are tested tools for these kinds of things that existed. The last time I was using make beyond trivial uses was a decade ago in college (incidentally, I actually did build jars with make, easier than fighting Eclipse...). But just knowing that something exists is more than half the battle, although the problem then is that it's frustrating as all hell watching the same ideas cycle round and round and round every couple years.