[akitzmiller]

I know it's just piling on at this point, but I've been doing a lot of software builds and deployment over the last 20 years, mostly in a scientific computing context. Nothing I've dealt with is as bad as JavaScript.

I've generated and hacked dozens of autotools builds and written m4 macros of my own; I've hacked CMake builds; written RPM spec files; fixed Rcpp package installs; written and modified innumerable Makefiles; setup Tomcat webapps; and use Python for most of my daily work. I've even hacked around with Boost's build thing.

Complexity is not the issue with JavaScript. Stability is the problem.

Most devs do not want to "know" build systems. You want it to work most of the time and when it doesn't, you want to be able to find the answer to a problem. You want that knowledge to accumulate over time so that the answer you found the last time still works.

Autotools is an insane system, but it's been the same insane for 30 years.

Currently using vue-cli with Vue 2 and Vuetify, a configuration depending on a lot of precisely pinned versions to get functional. There is a pile of deprecated library warnings during the lengthy build process that I have no idea how long it will take me to address. Could be a couple of hours, could be several days, could be impossible.

Would like to try Vite or esbuild because God knows we could use the speed up, but after investing a couple of weeks to figure out the precise balance of versions that will work and propagating to our 8 or 9 applications, where are we going to be next year? I saw a Tweet yesterday about vite on swc. Is that going to be the winner?

I half wish Richard Stallman would take over. How desperate is that?

[modeless]

You really prefer autotools or CMake to esbuild just because they are older and don't change as much? I will take esbuild over CMake every day of the week and twice on Sunday. C++ build tools are an abject disaster. (And CMake does change anyway)

[klodolph]

Not the parent commenter. I spent time using autotools long ago and developed a grudging respect for what they did and how they worked. Their design made sense, even though the system itself was quite cursed. CMake also—I never choose it for my own projects, and I hate using it, but I respect the consistency and portability.

Building JavaScript is just a fucking disaster. I’ve used a fair number of different bundling tools—Browserify, Webpack, Rollup, Esbuild, and Closure (the compiler). I’ve also used old-school concatenation… anything from <script> tags to something like “cat”. It’s just fucking awful. Stay on the straight, narrow path and you’ll survive. Deviate slightly and you’re doomed.

Making things worse, you might have two different environments you run your code in. Node.js and the browser. Surprisingly, the browser lurches ever fowards, and Node.js is the anchor keeping us in the past. Making things worse, you might try to use TypeScript. Making things worse, you might use JSX.

Nearly every JS project I work on needs a ton of babysitting w.r.t. the build system. At various places I’ve worked, there might be a team handling that for me, but if I’m working on a side project, it is very difficult to keep the complexity of the build system down to a reasonable level. Most guides on how to use frameworks will tell you to do something like “oh, just use create-react app” or similar, and you end up with a couple dozen new dependencies. Your build system will be a mix of templated code pasted in to your repo and third-party libraries. Integrating with anything else often requires various "adapter" dependencies, but it's a roll of the dice whether those libraries are built reasonably.

My basic desire is often a fairly simple list… I want front-end TypeScript code to be type-checked and bundled, I want a dev server that serves the bundle, I want to see build errors quickly and easily, I want to run tests without a browser environment. I know this is possible, but every time I’ve gotten it, it’s taken an unreasonable amount of effort.

[mynegation]

Not your parent commenter. I worked both with CMake/autotools and Java build tools (not esbuild specifically) and the point (which I agree with) is - yes - C/C++ build tools are complicated, but once you set it up it just runs most of the time without any problem. With things like webpack you are always one upgrade away from things breaking down in spectacular fashion, and the troubleshooting involves hunting github issues, blogs, and sometimes looking through the source code to figure out why this combination of npm package versions gives you the trouble.

[mst]

Somebody once described configuring fvwm2 (which is still my WM of choice, and indeed was theirs at the time of writing) as "like training a brain damaged hyena."

The thing is, as the same somebody noted, that then it stays trained.

To quote from upthread, "the same insane for 30 years" is in and of itself a huge feature that makes up for quite a lot of insane.

[Steltek]

I must be crazy because I still prefer regular Make to CMake. It seems like CMake tried to fix autotools problems (which were not Make's problems) but then created new problems of it's own. Why is setting an install prefix so complicated when it's the ONE option that almost everyone wants? Why the case sensitive name ending in .txt?

And CMake still seems extremely C/C++ focused. I don't want a language-specific build tool anymore. Heck, I'm not even sure I necessarily need a build tool so much as a generic task runner with patterns and complex/dynamic dependencies.

[akitzmiller]

I think CMake is a real pain and Autotools is an older pain. But I can figure them out and things I learned two blue moons ago are still basically true. The churn in JS makes it really hard for me to accumulate knowledge and solutions.

[ehutch79]

I think you missed the point. Churn is a real problem. Even if the tools are improving, it does need to be balanced against stability. They admited autotools was insane. but it was a consistent well know insanity.

Things are getting better. but js has definitely had more churn, and reinvented more wheels than anything else i know of.

[modeless]

I think you missed my point. Churn is obviously less desirable in the abstract, but the state of C++ build tools in particular is deplorable and the lack of churn doesn't come close to compensating for how terrible it is.

[rglover]

esbuild is the gold standard. Its creator has done a phenomenal job (and it's still early in its lifecycle). It's the first time I used a JS build tool and didn't scream at the monitor when dealing with nonsensical APIs and error output.

Re-implemented a complex setup using it in an afternoon with very few hiccups: https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick/blob/master/cli/src/fu....

[maxfurman]

The "early in its lifecycle" part is the source of GP's worry. esbuild _seems_ great now, but based on the history of JS tooling, who knows what will happen in a year or two. Look at the recent example of the JS community's multi-year embrace and then rejection of Webpack. I would be nervous about migrating too.

[rglover]

I share a similar fear (generally speaking), but in this particular case I think the risk is worth it because the cost of setup is next to zero and the speed of the thing is unreal. If something catastrophic happens with the project years down the road, at most I'll have spent a few hours getting it wired up (worth it considering the positive impact it's had on my productivity).

It's not the usual JS personality screaming "wEbPaCk iS dEaD!!!lol" it's clear the author is thoughtful (observable via the project itself, the docs, and how he interacts with people in Github comments).

Restored my faith quite a bit.

[mst]

Plus if the author is keeping to go versioning standards they'll probably also keep to go compatibility aesthetics which bodes well for the future.

It's still a risk, but in this case one I suspect I'll also take next time I need to add a build step to a JS project.

[jashper]

Hey now, let's leave Richard Stallman alone :D

[akitzmiller]

Indeed

[colejohnson66]

You'd really take autotools and M4 over some other build system? This honestly reads like a "get off my lawn. The old days were better" post.

[morelisp]

One advantage of autotools is that at least a lot of the skills are transferable. Shell scripts and Makefiles (and OK, M4 isn't so popular these days, but it was for a reasonably long time) are things I can learn and use everywhere, not just this project, not just C projects, not even just development.

I don't learn any transferable skills writing Webpack or Babel config. They don't even necessarily transfer to the next generation of the same tool.

I would also take a stable autotools over an unstable autotools, and I consider most of JS-land roughly equal in usability to unstable autotools. Autotools was also not that bad on the happy path where you were targeting, say, the top five POSIX systems over ten years - and maybe you didn't even need it at all, if you didn't need the performance from distinguishing each platform's best supported fd polling variant. Vs. JS, which is still bad even if you're only targeting evergreen browsers, because maybe you're stuck trying to integrate CSS modules with TypeScript or something. That kind of problem simply doesn't exist in autotools world.

[akitzmiller]

You're not totally wrong; I'm getting into that age range.

It's not that I prefer those tools; they are really obtuse. It's just that I can't handle the moving target of JavaScript. I'm sure I can figure out esbuild just fine, but in a year or two it could be abandoned in favor of swc or Vite or a Vite-esbuild-swc uber package.

[colejohnson66]

That is a very valid concern