5 ms·

> I'm interpreting your comment as implying that it's somehow a waste of time to develop alternatives to an incumbent that just won't evolve. That assertion ha

• weberc2 8y ago
  I’m not sure why you think anyone is advocating for change for its own sake. Is there something about the thread context that has confused you? The quoted statement seems perfectly valid to me.
  • geezerjay 8y ago
    > I'm not sure why you think anyone is advocating for change for its own sake. Your only remotely objective criticism of Make is that "it just won't evolve". That's not a reason at all, and only advocates change for the sake of change. Perhaps you could start to have a case if you could identify any aspect of Make that has problems that need fixing. Until then, any argument based on vage notions of evolving is pointless.
    • weberc2 8y ago
      > Your only remotely objective criticism of Make is that "it just won't evolve". I'm not the critic. You misunderstood the thread. Another user observed that lots of people have made other tools because they found make wanting and that make evolved to add features (presumably borrowing good ideas from its challengers). If you must be defensive, take it up with the authors of the aforementioned make-rivals.