4 ms·
If all I want to do is run a compiler over some C files, sure, make is fine. You can love it for that. That's almost never exclusively what I want to do. I wa
by nickelpro 4y ago
If all I want to do is run a compiler over some C files, sure, make is fine. You can love it for that.
That's almost never exclusively what I want to do.
I want to chainload a dependency manager, I want to download, compile, and link those dependencies. I want to run a code generator and integrate that generated code into the IDE's intellisense without ever letting that generated code out of the build tree. I want to generate a compile_commands.json to communicate to my IDE the relationships between the in-source libraries, executables, dependencies, and generated code.
For most build systems it is sufficient to describe the relationships between these components and the rest you get for free. make would require manually specifying every single command, every single tool, every argument. Miserable.
- tipiirai 4y agoOur team uses it to execute node programs. Starts so much faster than npx.
- yamtaddle 4y agoI am not following how Make is a replacement for npx. Npx is just for us lazy command-line users who can't be bothered to make sure a Node package is installed before trying to run a command, right? Make would either have to run npx itself, or you'd have to make sure the package you want to run was installed before running its command, in which case you can skip npx... but that's the same with or without make.
- Izkata 4y agoI don't know about npx specifically, but you can have the command recipe depend on the installed package, then have a first recipe to do the install only if it's missing. I do something like this with python and virtualenvs.