3 ms·
I have often thought about implementing a simple Makefile alternative in a literate style. Almost like an executable README.md. This way you can describe the pr
by cnity 3y ago
I have often thought about implementing a simple Makefile alternative in a literate style. Almost like an executable README.md. This way you can describe the project and the ways to interact with it in a much more readable way than a Makefile.
- cxr 3y ago> Almost like an executable README.md Previously: > There is a way to write a plain text file so that it looks the same (i.e. appears as plain text) whether it has the .txt extension when it's opened in a text editor and/or Web browser versus whether you rename it to have a browser-associated file extension like .htm or .html and then re-open it in a Web browser. Why is this relevant? Because: > Documents opened Web browsers are programmable. From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35389974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35389974> > If folks were really committed to improving the developer experience, then instead of what we do now [...] development would work like this: ¶1. Download the project source tree ¶2. Open README.html ¶3. Drag and drop the project source onto README.html From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936>
- cnity 3y agoYes! We are on the same wavelength. I am a big fan of viewing the web browser optionally as an offline tool for being basically a strong target for scriptable document and multimedia experiences. That said, this approach only works for projects that themselves target the browser, since the loaded script would be unable to execute commands outside of the browser (without some kind of companion application which runs a web server locally).