6 ms·

> And with justfiles, you can have something that looks and feels like make, but with a more pleasant syntax for non-compiling jobs. Make is a part of UNIX, wh

by roqi 3y ago

> And with justfiles, you can have something that looks and feels like make, but with a more pleasant syntax for non-compiling jobs. Make is a part of UNIX, which ensures it is extremely stable and is available on all UNIX systems. You don't get that from justfiles. You get syntactic sugar, but all the best parts of Make are thrown out of the window.

kstrauser 3y ago
OK, that's just not true. For starters, which make? GNU and BSD are common variants, and aren't 100% compatible. The overlap is large and useful, but does mean that you have to be aware of it if you're using multiple systems. For my uses, make offers nothing of value over just. I don't need any of the clever build dependency resolution stuff when I'm working in Python, and cargo handles everything better when I'm using Rust. Which isn't to say that make isn't enormously powerful and useful for other people, only that its extra power causes more work than reward for the ways I personally want to use it. For me, just is everything about make that I actually use, minus all the complicating features that get in my way.
- roqi 3y ago
  > OK, that's just not true. If you really feel that way then you will have to ask the OpenGroup people to fix the UNIX Shell and Utilities part, because they seem to have included a specification of make. https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695299/utilities/make.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695299/utilities/ma... > For starters, which make? The interface specified in the standard. > GNU and BSD are common variants, and aren't 100% compatible. Irrelevant. UNIX specifies an interface. It matters nothing if some implementation added their extensions. > For my uses, make offers nothing of value (...) That's perfectly fine. Just install just in your machines and work on your personal projects as you see fit. If on the other hand you intend to distribute something you work on, using make ensures that those using specific target platforms don't need to install extra software because it already ships preinstalled.
portiaKane 3y ago
[dead]
fbdab103 3y ago
>You get syntactic sugar, but all the best parts of Make are thrown out of the window. What does make have that just is missing? I have only dipped my toe into just, but it seems like a more-or-less superset of functionality. Plus, all sorts of niceties: built-in functions (path manipulation!), ability to declare scripting languages, self-documenting through `--list`, etc. Quite a lot of natural feature evolution if make was not forever frozen in time by the POSIX standard.
- roqi 3y ago
  > What does make have that just is missing? Make is a part of UNIX, so it's ubiquitous, stable, and time-proof.
  - nprateem 3y ago
    By this argument there would never be any innovation
    - roqi 3y ago
      You didn't pointed out any innovation. New for the sake of new is not innovation, it's just churn.
      - nprateem 3y ago
        Another poster listed a litany of problems with make
nprateem 3y ago
If the best thing going for make is its ubiquity I'd rather have a tool that's better designed (for non- compiling jobs).

by roqi 3y ago

kstrauser 3y ago

OK, that's just not true. For starters, which make? GNU and BSD are common variants, and aren't 100% compatible. The overlap is large and useful, but does mean that you have to be aware of it if you're using multiple systems. For my uses, make offers nothing of value over just. I don't need any of the clever build dependency resolution stuff when I'm working in Python, and cargo handles everything better when I'm using Rust. Which isn't to say that make isn't enormously powerful and useful for other people, only that its extra power causes more work than reward for the ways I personally want to use it. For me, just is everything about make that I actually use, minus all the complicating features that get in my way.

roqi 3y ago
> OK, that's just not true. If you really feel that way then you will have to ask the OpenGroup people to fix the UNIX Shell and Utilities part, because they seem to have included a specification of make. https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695299/utilities/make.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695299/utilities/ma... > For starters, which make? The interface specified in the standard. > GNU and BSD are common variants, and aren't 100% compatible. Irrelevant. UNIX specifies an interface. It matters nothing if some implementation added their extensions. > For my uses, make offers nothing of value (...) That's perfectly fine. Just install just in your machines and work on your personal projects as you see fit. If on the other hand you intend to distribute something you work on, using make ensures that those using specific target platforms don't need to install extra software because it already ships preinstalled.

portiaKane 3y ago

[dead]

fbdab103 3y ago

>You get syntactic sugar, but all the best parts of Make are thrown out of the window. What does make have that just is missing? I have only dipped my toe into just, but it seems like a more-or-less superset of functionality. Plus, all sorts of niceties: built-in functions (path manipulation!), ability to declare scripting languages, self-documenting through `--list`, etc. Quite a lot of natural feature evolution if make was not forever frozen in time by the POSIX standard.

roqi 3y ago
> What does make have that just is missing? Make is a part of UNIX, so it's ubiquitous, stable, and time-proof.
- nprateem 3y ago
  By this argument there would never be any innovation
  - roqi 3y ago
    You didn't pointed out any innovation. New for the sake of new is not innovation, it's just churn.
    - nprateem 3y ago
      Another poster listed a litany of problems with make

nprateem 3y ago

If the best thing going for make is its ubiquity I'd rather have a tool that's better designed (for non- compiling jobs).