4 ms·
What is the upside compared to just creating the corresponding shell scripts? I can see that one file instead of how many more is better, but it's also one thin
by charles_f 3y ago
What is the upside compared to just creating the corresponding shell scripts? I can see that one file instead of how many more is better, but it's also one thing more to worry about and confuse people on your project, surely there's more to it?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoAssuming the compilation is perfect, it lets the author maintain the simple Just format, while simultaneously distributing the same code to a runtime (shell) that is installed everywhere. Lowers the barrier of entry. Also, my quick glance at the just.sh output, it introduces a lot of niceties most people are not going to include in their own shell scripts. I love Just. Corrects many of Makes hindsight-mistakes, and centralizes all of your project tasks for an easy to browse summary. Even if each task is essentially `bash scripts/dothing.sh`, the single source is nice.
- rgoulter 3y agoI reckon just is 'low-medium benefit for low effort'. There's some nice UX to it, but I think a substantial benefit to it is having one place where you organise "these are the tasks that get run". In response to "Why just not make" or "why just not bash script", I'd say "UX improvements for next to no effort".. or perhaps a conventional entry point for what tasks to run. Having a transpiled bash script from a justfile has the benefit of not needing just installed.