2 ms·
You see, the very first point of the article not only has a really weird opinion (that'd be only half bad), but but this weird opinion is being justified/defend
by Joker_vD 4y ago
You see, the very first point of the article not only has a really weird opinion (that'd be only half bad), but but this weird opinion is being justified/defended with obviously faulty reasoning: "in the shell spaces matter, [so don't use tabs]. Instead, ask make to use > as the block character". Yeah, because ">" doesn't matter in shell, and there is absolutely no confusion possible as a result. Imagine copypasting a recipe from such a Makefile into a shell? The results will be pretty hilarious.
Which is a shame because the rest of the post is mostly reasonable: turning recipes from a collection of one-liners into an actual piece of shell script, deleting output files on build errors, using -e and -o pipefail, etc.
- benreesman 4y agoOh I also disagree with the “>” thing. I just think we could have been like: “the > thing seems bad, good call on the pipefail thing. moving on…” rather than like ruin this guys day with 100+ negative comments because of the novel horror of a clickbait blog title. It’s not that big of a deal (unless you’re the guy who just got clobbered by every HN user awake on Sunday morning). It’s just weird.