> Every single time in my career that I've had someone complain about a flaw in make, what I discover is a significant flaw in their description of the make rul

> Every single time in my career that I've had someone complain about a flaw in make, what I discover is a significant flaw in their description of the make rules. If it is not behaving correctly, you did not fully describe the DAG. You can look at the dependency graph in two ways. The first is, in order to build X, you first need to build Y and Z. These kinds of dependencies tend to be relatively easy to figure out. The second way is to ask, if Y changes, what needs to be rebuilt--and these kind of rebuild dependencies aren't going to be correct unless they're autogenerated, and getting autogenerated dependencies done correctly is challenging. (This basically reaches the point in the article that any system that doesn't support dynamic dependencies ends up hacking its way to support for dynamic dependencies). The other key point I will make is that, while it can be possible to describe the DAG you want with make, it tends to fight you every step in the way. If almost everyone is complaining about how hard it is to get the DAG correct in make, then maybe the problem isn't that everyone can't figure out how to fully describe the DAG, it's that make isn't a good option for specifying the DAG.