5 ms·
Lol. I have heard that from people who haven’t used it. It’s lighter-weight. Not as cryptic. Can also hook it up to your makefile targets, make them easier to
by LeonB 6y ago
Lol. I have heard that from people who haven’t used it.
It’s lighter-weight. Not as cryptic. Can also hook it up to your makefile targets, make them easier to access.
The other thing people say is “isn’t that same as npm scripts?” — it can complement those as well.
I modify “cd” so that on entering any folder it shows me the available .ok commands, if any.
- majewsky 6y agoMakefiles aren't cryptic if all you need is some-name: some command
- eterps 6y agoMakefile:2: * missing separator. Stop. But yeah, other than that Makefiles aren't cryptic :)
- LeonB 6y agoHave you shown a “getting started with makefiles” guide to a team member who is brought in to help with documentation or accessibility or pretty much anything other than development? It is cryptic in the true sense of the word. And yet, ok files are not a competitor to makefiles. Use both together.
- Kaze404 6y agoI literally wrote my first makefile today after posting the original comment and had no issues.
- sorbits 6y agoIt’s lighter-weight. Not as cryptic. Can also hook it up to your makefile targets, make them easier to access. The only additional “weight” in the Makefile would be the name of the target, where you leave it out and have it default to 1, 2, … n, which I would argue is more cryptic, as “make build” or “make deploy” is always doing that action, whereas “ok 2” could be deploy in one folder, and push in another. As for easy access, most shells should offer you tab completion for the Makefile’s targets, and your development environment may also pick up the existence of the Makefile and offer a way to run the targets. Additionally Makefiles allow to setup dependencies, for example in your ok file example you have ./build.sh and ./deploy.sh as two actions: Clearly build should be a dependency of deploy, so “make deploy” implies building, rather than having to always do “ok 1 && ok 2”. Lastly there is the ability to do dry-runs with Makefiles, once you start to setup dependencies…
- LeonB 6y agoYou haven’t used or experienced .ok files and are seeing them as a competitor to makefiles and being very defensive. They’re not a competitor to makefiles. With ok you can also name the commands. It’s optional. I would suggest using both, in a project that involves building, if you are already comfortable with makefiles. You may also have npm scripts, again I’d suggest both. You’ll probably find it quite comfortable and fun. Makefiles have more features but bring with them more complexity and nuance, for example the dependency features, which are useful for making but a hindrance for a lot of other project tasks. When I show a “getting started with makefiles” guide to my documentation friend they look at me like I’m insane. It is truly cryptic to the uninitiated. But you already understand makefiles, so try using both.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago> When I show a “getting started with makefiles” guide to my documentation friend they look at me like I’m insane. I am still not going to add another tool that makes my project even more spaghetti than it already is.
- LeonB 6y agoI use it and it does not make my project more spaghetti. Be sure to let me know when you put something out in the world. You’ll find that i come around and act in an encouraging manner and do not take pot shots at it without trying it out. Please do not be unkind.
- Kaze404 6y agoWhile this is a fair thing to say, your original response to my comment wasn't exactly inviting of a positive discussion. It sounded pretty dismissive to me.
- LeonB 6y agoHi Kaze404. I think I see what you mean and I’m sorry for that. The “lol” wasn’t called for. That comes from my own personal frustration. Thanks for coming back and saying that now. I understand.