[aikah]

> but for long-running processes like file watching, dev servers, hot reloading, etc.

I don't think anybody should use make to do that at first place. That's not what make was built for. Likewise Foreman should not be used as a build tool because it is not.

EDIT:

now i've seen the makefile in the example,I understand your comment and this is absolutely not where one wants to use make, that's just ridiculous.

[solipsism]

Wouldn't "it's not appropriate for the task" be a better reason not to use something than "it's not made for the task"? Don't you have any better reasons at all? Does make bring out people's conservative side or something?

Let me ask you this. Would you sit on a tree stump? How about kill a fly with a newspaper? Sometimes things are great for purposes for which they weren't originally intended.

[aikah]

> Does make bring out people's conservative side or something?

Misuse of tools in software development is why we end up with broken software, useless solutions that solve stupid problems because the problem wasn't well understood as first place, and first and foremost unnecessary dependencies. That's why we end up with this makefile "hack".

Now explain what it's got to do with "conservatism". bad practices != innovation .

[solipsism]

Do you really believe any use of a tool in a way that wasn't intended is a "bad practice"? Is there no more subtlety or thought to it than that? This adherence to an ultra-simplistic black-and-white rule is absolutely a form of conservatism.

If you think this particular use of make is a "bad practice", then argue why it is! If there's no better reason than "This use isn't as intended!" then your opinion won't have much weight with people.

[jdp]

The example isn't a makefile, it's a procfile.

[aikah]

I'm talking about the link, not the op.