4 ms·
Yes, it is silly. You've just added extra complexity to a project for little to no benefit. If you decide to move the script you take the same steps as if you m
by beefbroccoli 6y ago
Yes, it is silly. You've just added extra complexity to a project for little to no benefit. If you decide to move the script you take the same steps as if you moved anything else i.e update the references.
- idolaspecus 6y agoHow would you define complexity such that a script which computes a value is less complex than a script which accepts that pre-computed value?
- beefbroccoli 6y agoIt's unnecessary complexity for the user. As opposed to simply having the build instructions as `Run bin/build` you're suggesting "Run bin/build <project root>". But there's zero reason for requiring the user to supply the project root when we already know it.
- idolaspecus 6y agoThis is exactly the kind of implicit coupling that makes software unmaintainable in the long run. You _are not passing the project root_, you are passing the value of a variable which currently should be set to the project root. The constraints on this value are not that it must be the project root, they are other constraints that are satisfied by the project root right now.
- beefbroccoli 6y agoYou said earlier that "If the inconvenience of arguments troubles you, write a wrapper". That's precisely what a script like this is. A wrapper. I can run one simple, static command, similar to just about any build tool e.g. `cd project && make`.