4 ms·

>Make is from 1977, and is pretty rare for web developers. Because web developers seem to be unfamiliar with software that has solved their problems decades ag

>Make is from 1977, and is pretty rare for web developers. Because web developers seem to be unfamiliar with software that has solved their problems decades ago in languages that aren't JavaScript.

nailer 12y ago
Yes, web developers are generally unfamiliar with shell interspersed with Make. Not wanting two additional languages for your project is an excellent reason to use a tool that matches the rest of your project.
- davexunit 12y ago
  Any developer should know how to write basic shell scripts to glue things together. Not taking advantage of the excellent pre-existing unix systems tools is a huge mistake.
  - tokenizerrr 12y ago
    That becomes a problem if you also want to have your project to be buildable on Windows, and it seems silly to exclude one platform solely because your build process doesn't support it.
    - davexunit 12y ago
      Plenty of software that uses make and other tools is buildable on Windows.
    - Danieru 12y ago
      Windows does have nmake. Of course it is a horrible implementation of make but the basics work.
- aidanhs 12y ago
  I quite like Jake as a make-equivalent in Javascript and was relieved to discover it after experiencing 20s grunt build times.
- colanderman 12y ago
  Not wanting two additional languages for your project is a very silly reason. A build system is a system and needs to be learnt, whether it's a library in JS or a domain-specific language. (That a JS-based build system shares syntax with JS is not relevant, since the useful denotation is JS syntax->build script, not JS syntax->JS code (unless you're debugging the build system itself). I contend that the denotation JS syntax->build script is no easier, and is perhaps more difficult, to learn than the denotation build syntax->build script, as it is, by definition, confusingly similar to the syntax for JS code!)
  - nailer 12y ago
    > I contend that the denotation JS syntax->build script is no easier, and is perhaps more difficult, to learn than the denotation build syntax->build script, as it is, by definition, confusingly similar to the syntax for JS code!) Really? gulp build step dependencies look almost exactly like AMD dependencies. Edit: my wife has also asked me to ask you "will it scale?"
    - colanderman 12y ago
      I've never used (or even heard of) gulp or AMD (I'm guessing they're widely used outside of JS-only environments), but from your statement I infer that one must be implemented as a JS library, and one must be a DSL with JS-like syntax. Are you implying that my parenthetical is invalid because the DSL has JS-like syntax? You must have missed where I said "no easier" and "perhaps more difficult". If the DSL's syntax is identical to that of the library's, then clearly the denotation of the library is no easier to understand than that of the DSL – they are identical. Was your wife's question supposed to be funny?
      - nailer 12y ago
        > I've never used (or even heard of) gulp or AMD (I'm guessing they're widely used outside of JS-only environments) They're used widely used in things with a front end. > I infer that one must be implemented as a JS library, and one must be a DSL with JS-like syntax. No, they're both JS libraries. See Google.
malandrew 12y ago
make isn't even that good a build system... any system that requires that you create your own "clean" step(s) is wrong IMHO. A good build system is aware of the intermediate and final artifacts produced and knows what artifacts need to be created when changes are made [0]. That being said, javascript build systems just repeat the mistakes made by make, instead of learning from those mistakes. [0] http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf
richmarr 12y ago
Your comment seems to imply judgement of web developers for not looking outside their community, but fragmentation seems part of the nature of the software community. Demographically speaking, web developers are more likely to be younger, have grown up with Windows, and to have not developed for a different platform. In that context it's not surprising there's lower than average familiarity with Make.

>Make is from 1977, and is pretty rare for web developers. Because web developers seem to be unfamiliar with software that has solved their problems decades ago in languages that aren't JavaScript.

nailer 12y ago

Yes, web developers are generally unfamiliar with shell interspersed with Make. Not wanting two additional languages for your project is an excellent reason to use a tool that matches the rest of your project.

davexunit 12y ago
Any developer should know how to write basic shell scripts to glue things together. Not taking advantage of the excellent pre-existing unix systems tools is a huge mistake.
- tokenizerrr 12y ago
  That becomes a problem if you also want to have your project to be buildable on Windows, and it seems silly to exclude one platform solely because your build process doesn't support it.
  - davexunit 12y ago
    Plenty of software that uses make and other tools is buildable on Windows.
  - Danieru 12y ago
    Windows does have nmake. Of course it is a horrible implementation of make but the basics work.
aidanhs 12y ago
I quite like Jake as a make-equivalent in Javascript and was relieved to discover it after experiencing 20s grunt build times.
colanderman 12y ago
Not wanting two additional languages for your project is a very silly reason. A build system is a system and needs to be learnt, whether it's a library in JS or a domain-specific language. (That a JS-based build system shares syntax with JS is not relevant, since the useful denotation is JS syntax->build script, not JS syntax->JS code (unless you're debugging the build system itself). I contend that the denotation JS syntax->build script is no easier, and is perhaps more difficult, to learn than the denotation build syntax->build script, as it is, by definition, confusingly similar to the syntax for JS code!)
- nailer 12y ago
  > I contend that the denotation JS syntax->build script is no easier, and is perhaps more difficult, to learn than the denotation build syntax->build script, as it is, by definition, confusingly similar to the syntax for JS code!) Really? gulp build step dependencies look almost exactly like AMD dependencies. Edit: my wife has also asked me to ask you "will it scale?"
  - colanderman 12y ago
    I've never used (or even heard of) gulp or AMD (I'm guessing they're widely used outside of JS-only environments), but from your statement I infer that one must be implemented as a JS library, and one must be a DSL with JS-like syntax. Are you implying that my parenthetical is invalid because the DSL has JS-like syntax? You must have missed where I said "no easier" and "perhaps more difficult". If the DSL's syntax is identical to that of the library's, then clearly the denotation of the library is no easier to understand than that of the DSL – they are identical. Was your wife's question supposed to be funny?
    - nailer 12y ago
      > I've never used (or even heard of) gulp or AMD (I'm guessing they're widely used outside of JS-only environments) They're used widely used in things with a front end. > I infer that one must be implemented as a JS library, and one must be a DSL with JS-like syntax. No, they're both JS libraries. See Google.

malandrew 12y ago

make isn't even that good a build system... any system that requires that you create your own "clean" step(s) is wrong IMHO. A good build system is aware of the intermediate and final artifacts produced and knows what artifacts need to be created when changes are made [0]. That being said, javascript build systems just repeat the mistakes made by make, instead of learning from those mistakes. [0] http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf

richmarr 12y ago

Your comment seems to imply judgement of web developers for not looking outside their community, but fragmentation seems part of the nature of the software community. Demographically speaking, web developers are more likely to be younger, have grown up with Windows, and to have not developed for a different platform. In that context it's not surprising there's lower than average familiarity with Make.