3 ms·
You seem to be describing the use of makefiles for the purpose they're intended for: Describing a DAG where each node is a file and each edge is a build step. T
by Arch-TK 2y ago
You seem to be describing the use of makefiles for the purpose they're intended for: Describing a DAG where each node is a file and each edge is a build step. This is not a misuse of Make and not what I'm complaining about.
That being said, you're under the impression that you're somehow not writing posix shell/bash when writing a makefile. You still are.
- bborud 2y agoSure, but we're often making sparing use of what make has to offer, like the pattern rules. I think that's okay, but it is also a reminder that perhaps there is room for a similar tool that can support patterns and built-in mechanisms that are more useful to today's languages. Rust and Go in particular. I think there is a huge difference between implementing logic in bash and invoking programs using shell syntax. I am aware of the fact that a lot of people used to put shell script beyond simple invocations in Makefiles, but I see that as a degenerate case. You shouldn't do that.
- Arch-TK 2y ago> I am aware of the fact that a lot of people used to put shell script beyond simple invocations in Makefiles, but I see that as a degenerate case. You shouldn't do that. Okay, so I am not sure why you seemed to object to my initial comment specifically talking about this kind of use of Make.