3 ms·
While I'm a big fan of the Unix Philosophy, I've found gulp to be incredibly satisfying as a build tool. I cd into my project directory and run gulp, then all
by notduncansmith 13y ago
While I'm a big fan of the Unix Philosophy, I've found gulp to be incredibly satisfying as a build tool. I cd into my project directory and run gulp, then all my SCSS/CS gets compiled, watched, and re-compiled on change, with LiveReload pushing style changes straight to the browser; and whenever I make a change to my server (Node.js) code, it gets compiled and run against my tests. Then when I'm ready to push to production, I run gulp build and then push it up :) Oh, and my whole gulpfile is <100 lines, a fair amount of which is whitespace/stylistic. It's incredibly readable and flexible: composing complex supertasks is easy.
I don't have anything against Make, I've never used it; judging by the code samples in the article, however, and contrasting that with my gulpfile (which, it's worth noting, didn't require me to learn a new language/DSL, just a dead-simple API), I feel much more empowered by gulp than make.
Somewhat relevant: I've also found gulp much easier to use and maintain than Grunt.
- TheAceOfHearts 13y agoI like Gulp a lot, but I'd hardly say it's perfect. It's weird, it doesn't really make sense that everything is a stream. For example, why is watching something a stream? With that being said, it's miles above Grunt.
- notduncansmith 13y agoYeah, once you commit to any sort of "everything is ______" philosophy, you're bound to find some edge-cases where things get weird. The file-watch in particular does make sense to me, albeit in an odd way: basically, the file just gets polled on an interval, then it gets streamed into whatever tasks you've attached to the watch. Thinking about the act of watching itself as a stream does seem hinky.