3 ms·
I set up a whole website for it, but I guess people don't look. The difference between Rig and other build systems is that it doesn't do anything for you. Othe
by gavinhoward 3y ago
I set up a whole website for it, but I guess people don't look.
The difference between Rig and other build systems is that it doesn't do anything for you. Others like to magically make your build work.
I guess my problem is that I didn't emphasize the supply chain safety. That is on me. But I didn't because that part isn't ready yet.
- skybrian 3y agoYes, you have start with some advantages, or people won't read any further. Maybe next time?
- gavinhoward 3y agoThere won't be a next time for Rig, unfortunately. Gotta move on. I have heard lots of people say here that they want code upfront, so I put it near the top on the website. Turns out, not so much. Oh well.
- wocram 3y agoHaving read the 2 recent blog posts, I was interested in the release and read through most of the rig site. The hook on the rig page tells me it's an alternative to make, and geared towards C code. It doesn't tell me why this is better than make or anything else, and it doesn't look easy to use. Even if you promised the moon, it's hard to imagine anyone would jump and rewrite their codebase to try a new build system. I want a build system to take care of as much as possible for me, the package availability nixpkgs with the speed of bazel. Nix is underused because the beginner UX is atrocious, and while the package management is good, it's not as suitable as a build system. Bazel and it's offspring are underused because it requires a huge amount of up front setup, and has a half baked package management story. Since you have clearly thought a lot about this space, I hope you don't completely drop the ideas you have here.