3 ms·

You cannot compare something like Maven/Gradle/SBT/Leiningen to Make. Make doesn't do incremental building and testing, it doesn't do test coverage reports, it

You cannot compare something like Maven/Gradle/SBT/Leiningen to Make. Make doesn't do incremental building and testing, it doesn't do test coverage reports, it doesn't download the dependencies for you, it doesn't build the Javadoc documentation for you, it does not package and publish your signed artifacts on Maven Central, it does not wrap your stuff in an OS specific installer, etc, etc... And you know, these things are standard stuff that one would like to do for every project. It's unfathomable why anybody would want to do this manual plumbing for each project with Make. You call Make "simple", I call it "dumb" and it's the reason for why people end up with aberrations of nature, such as Autotools. > Gradle requires you to read the first 12 chapters of the manual before you can even begin doing something more advanced than running compile You're exaggerating. Compiling a project is a hello world of a couple of lines. What "advanced" usage are you talking about anyway?

fit2rule 12y ago
>And you know, these things are standard stuff that one would like to do for every project And its totally stupid, and the stupid persists, because 'its standard' now. This is how stupid stuff becomes standard - people say "hey, this stupid stuff - its standard now". You're using the argument that its a good thing to have to do all of that stuff with one tool .. really? (Besides, Make can do all of that - you just have to configure it to do so, like any other tool..)
vidarh 12y ago
> Make doesn't do incremental building Say what? That's one of the main purposes of make. > it doesn't do test coverage reports, it doesn't download the dependencies for you, it doesn't build the Javadoc documentation for you, it does not package and publish your signed artifacts on Maven Central, it does not wrap your stuff in an OS specific installer, etc, etc... ... without the appropriate rule supported by whatever tools you prefer. Which you, once you have a workflow that works for you, can put in a file and include by reference in your makefiles going forward. It's perfectly possible it's simpler for you to use one of the tools you list than doing so, but the nice things about relying on basic make is that very often people will want to tweak your assumptions about what "one would like to do for every project": > And you know, these things are standard stuff that one would like to do for every project. Most of what you listed is stuff that I rarely want to do, and some of them are things I've never done. > I call it "dumb" and it's the reason for why people end up with aberrations of nature, such as Autotools. The reason people end up with evil stuff like autotools is usually to (try) handle platform API differences, not usually to handle any of the stuff you listed. We seem to agree that Autotools is an awful mess, though.

fit2rule 12y ago

>And you know, these things are standard stuff that one would like to do for every project And its totally stupid, and the stupid persists, because 'its standard' now. This is how stupid stuff becomes standard - people say "hey, this stupid stuff - its standard now". You're using the argument that its a good thing to have to do all of that stuff with one tool .. really? (Besides, Make can do all of that - you just have to configure it to do so, like any other tool..)

vidarh 12y ago

> Make doesn't do incremental building Say what? That's one of the main purposes of make. > it doesn't do test coverage reports, it doesn't download the dependencies for you, it doesn't build the Javadoc documentation for you, it does not package and publish your signed artifacts on Maven Central, it does not wrap your stuff in an OS specific installer, etc, etc... ... without the appropriate rule supported by whatever tools you prefer. Which you, once you have a workflow that works for you, can put in a file and include by reference in your makefiles going forward. It's perfectly possible it's simpler for you to use one of the tools you list than doing so, but the nice things about relying on basic make is that very often people will want to tweak your assumptions about what "one would like to do for every project": > And you know, these things are standard stuff that one would like to do for every project. Most of what you listed is stuff that I rarely want to do, and some of them are things I've never done. > I call it "dumb" and it's the reason for why people end up with aberrations of nature, such as Autotools. The reason people end up with evil stuff like autotools is usually to (try) handle platform API differences, not usually to handle any of the stuff you listed. We seem to agree that Autotools is an awful mess, though.