3 ms·
I wanted to see what was wrong with Makefile and how Taskfile solved the issue, but the post doesn't explain; it's more a tutorial on how to use Taskfile. If th
by rakoo 3y ago
I wanted to see what was wrong with Makefile and how Taskfile solved the issue, but the post doesn't explain; it's more a tutorial on how to use Taskfile. If the author reads this, I think we'd love to know what's wrong with make.
Also, a lot of those look like artificial complexity over a shell script sourcing another one containing only variables export, and running the required scripts.
- thiht 3y agoIf you don't know what's wrong with make, just use make. But it probably means you probably don't USE make. If your Makefiles look like this: build: go build -o dist/app You might as well just use make, it's fine. It's less fine when you want to avoid rebuilding if sources didn't change, or if you want to use environment variables, maybe from a dotenv file, or if you want to do conditions (like adding a debug flag to a build command if a make variable is set), or if you need to use make incantations (hoping they'll work with both BSD Make and GNU Make), then a Taskfile might help solving some issues, including legibility.
- rakoo 3y agoI don't use make, so I wanted to see what was wrong with it, and the author's argument is that it's old. Not very convincing. Your description starts to be more interesting, and I feel like mk (the successor of make from the Plan 9 people: https://plan9.io/sys/doc/mk.html https://plan9.io/sys/doc/mk.html) might address those, but again, I don't have a need for it.