[montroser]

Agreed. There has been so much churn and fragmentation with build tools over the last few years. So much complexity for what is not such a complicated problem to solve. Hopefully this is the "has to get worse before it can get better" part.

[gaborbernat]

> So much complexity for what is not such a complicated problem to solve.

As someone who actually worked weeks on their spare time, I beg to differ. This is a very complicated problem to solve. And everyone has their own opinion on how things should work, which is goverened by their narrow use case. But you see a "standard" packaging tool needs to be the opposite of narrow use case. The main reason Anacond Inc exists is because they wanted to solve this for data science. Even with them being a relatively big corporation their "solution" is not loved universally, but works ok most of the time.

[thrashh]

I disagree. I actually think it’s a complicated problem because there’s so many issues that have to be solved all at once.

What has been happening is that someone writes a build tool to solve a specific problem that they have but they neglect to solve all the other ones. Why would they? They’re not being funded.

That’s what caused (and still causes) a lot of the churn in JS too.