4 ms·
It’s an omission and serious bug for this thread to not already contain the following comments: “Why would I consider this, given that make is perfect” And “
by LeonB 3y ago
It’s an omission and serious bug for this thread to not already contain the following comments:
“Why would I consider this, given that make is perfect”
And
“Doesn’t eMacs org mode already do this?”
—
Seriously, looks nice.
I’m a big fan of Jeeves and Wooster novels and I am a little concerned that Reginald Jeeves would not like to be portrayed as a kind of murderous robot. He’s far too civil to execute people (though he did use a kosh to knock out a police officer on at least one occasion).
- yeti-sh 3y agoThanks! Perhaps this particular robot is running a much more civilized version of Skynet/Cyberdyne firmware. And is sure to be speaking impeccable English.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- haolez 3y agoI wouldn't say make is perfect, but it's different from this kind of tool. Make is more geared towards file creation that depends on complex pipelines. It's not a task runner. In fact, you have to force it to be a task runner with .PHONY if you really need it to.
- yeti-sh 3y agoWith interpretable languages, this feature of Make is IMHO rarely called for. Task running is; Makefile still is a standard way to do project maintenance, both locally and CI. jeeves is an attempt to extract that feature of Make, and provide it in a more accessible way. By making .PHONY and .ONESHELL labels history, as a particular example.
- kelnos 3y ago> “Why would I consider this, given that make is perfect” Not even that; this doesn't seem to implement any of make's core features, so it's not actually a replacement for make. It's a replacement for shell scripts. (And no, I don't buy that the comparison is apt because some people use make as a command runner. Sure, they do, sometimes, but that doesn't mean jeeves is a make replacement. It's not.)