3 ms·

Any examples besides the subject?

ttyprintk 2y ago
I’m old enough that Solaris came with SVR4 make as an alternative. On Windows, Borland make and nmake come to mind.
GuB-42 2y ago
"just" is not a better make, it is, well, just a command runner. Make is designed, well, to make stuff, it is a build system. But now, it is showing its age as a build system, and other, more advanced systems have taken over, these are the "better make" [1]. But it turns out that make is flexible and can be used for other things, namely running commands, and it has been rather popular for this. Problem is, make is still a build system at its core, and it has some quirks that make it less than ideal as a simple command runner, notably the ".PHONY" target. Just is like make, but it is explicitly not a build system, which allows it to do away with most of these quirks. So is it a "better make"? As a build system, no, it is intentionally a "worse make", but as "just a command runner", then it is indeed a "better make", and I am not aware of a similar project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_build_automation_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_build_automation_softw...
dmead 2y ago
Cmake, rake, gradle, snakemake, scons, bazel, blaze, sbt, cabal, stack, invoke. Blah blah blah blah What tends to happen is that some new language comes out. somebody decides they don't like the fact that make is actually more like prolog than anything else. They don't like prolog and just want to run some shell commands. They then decide to demonstrate the productivity of their new language. they implement a build system in and mostly for that language. People use it, a new language comes out and the cycle repeats. Don't waste your time. Actually learn make and just be ok with the fact that it does look a lot like shell/bash, but it isn't. Replacing make is like trying to replace the word "cool" in the English language. People have tried. It never succeeds

I’m old enough that Solaris came with SVR4 make as an alternative. On Windows, Borland make and nmake come to mind.

"just" is not a better make, it is, well, just a command runner. Make is designed, well, to make stuff, it is a build system. But now, it is showing its age as a build system, and other, more advanced systems have taken over, these are the "better make" [1]. But it turns out that make is flexible and can be used for other things, namely running commands, and it has been rather popular for this. Problem is, make is still a build system at its core, and it has some quirks that make it less than ideal as a simple command runner, notably the ".PHONY" target. Just is like make, but it is explicitly not a build system, which allows it to do away with most of these quirks. So is it a "better make"? As a build system, no, it is intentionally a "worse make", but as "just a command runner", then it is indeed a "better make", and I am not aware of a similar project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_build_automation_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_build_automation_softw...

dmead 2y ago

Cmake, rake, gradle, snakemake, scons, bazel, blaze, sbt, cabal, stack, invoke. Blah blah blah blah What tends to happen is that some new language comes out. somebody decides they don't like the fact that make is actually more like prolog than anything else. They don't like prolog and just want to run some shell commands. They then decide to demonstrate the productivity of their new language. they implement a build system in and mostly for that language. People use it, a new language comes out and the cycle repeats. Don't waste your time. Actually learn make and just be ok with the fact that it does look a lot like shell/bash, but it isn't. Replacing make is like trying to replace the word "cool" in the English language. People have tried. It never succeeds