3 ms·

> He's not using C, though :-) As said elsewhere, the use-case in the article is too simple to warrant a Makefile. So: if you aren't compiling some static lang

> He's not using C, though :-) As said elsewhere, the use-case in the article is too simple to warrant a Makefile. So: if you aren't compiling some static language, you do not need - and certainly don't want to use - Make. > you add an extra step in the build instructions asking them to... install GNU Make. The main reason to use Make is that it is installed everywhere, as stated multiple times in other posts. If you must install something, you can also install a better alternative for your specific use-case to Make. > one of the first things you'd do was to install the GNU userland Yes, and the Unix vendors even shipped them on companion CDs or similar. > is not standardized like awk Same problem with awk (and sed and ...): some weeks ago I had problem with the SDK for some real-time Linux that works with mawk only, and not with GNU awk (most of the time it's the other way round, only working for some GNU program).

Brian_K_White 2y ago
It's a much smaller problem to port a makefile to a different make than to deal with most of the alternatives and their requirements.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
  That depends if the person who must do the porting knows Make or not and which GNU Make (it's always about GNU Make!) feature had been used. And chances are JS devs don't at all or just as little as the one who wrote the article. Don't get me wrong: I don't like Make, but I hate CMake and Autotools (and many other C++ build systems) too (and C and C++ and Fortran compilers and their vendors).
oblio 2y ago
> As said elsewhere, the use-case in the article is too simple to warrant a Makefile. So: if you aren't compiling some static language, you do not need - and certainly don't want to use - Make. I've found that I prefer make as a command runner and most of the time I'm just running Python poetry commands or building Docker containers or running AWS infra commands. It's very useful to have a simple tool to run commands and have them depend on each other. And regarding many of the alternatives to Make, they're either more complex or have other issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41608555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41608555

Brian_K_White 2y ago

It's a much smaller problem to port a makefile to a different make than to deal with most of the alternatives and their requirements.

ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
That depends if the person who must do the porting knows Make or not and which GNU Make (it's always about GNU Make!) feature had been used. And chances are JS devs don't at all or just as little as the one who wrote the article. Don't get me wrong: I don't like Make, but I hate CMake and Autotools (and many other C++ build systems) too (and C and C++ and Fortran compilers and their vendors).

oblio 2y ago

> As said elsewhere, the use-case in the article is too simple to warrant a Makefile. So: if you aren't compiling some static language, you do not need - and certainly don't want to use - Make. I've found that I prefer make as a command runner and most of the time I'm just running Python poetry commands or building Docker containers or running AWS infra commands. It's very useful to have a simple tool to run commands and have them depend on each other. And regarding many of the alternatives to Make, they're either more complex or have other issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41608555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41608555