> That is not the argument though. But it was; one of his arguments. Yes, he opens with the argument that he was unhappy with the Make for years, but he later

> That is not the argument though. But it was; one of his arguments. Yes, he opens with the argument that he was unhappy with the Make for years, but he later clarifies why: > I am still stuck with a tool that (according to Wikipedia) has been written 47 years ago. You probably haven't read his article to the end? Those were his words I copy-pasted from the blog. So one of the reasons he is unhappy is because Make is 47 years old. For some reason, it stopped to be good enough 20 years ago, according to his opinion. I can give him that we can always have a better tool, but it is a tautology. Unfortunately, his offered alternative is not better IMO.