Make doesn’t have any builtin —help for the list of user defined targets, and has a slightly wonky bespoke syntax of it’s own. So it’s quite natural to look for something that has those properties.
But Taskfile didn't improve anything about Make? Make has a huge user base, it's battle-tested in many environments, it has a ton of infrastructure around it...
Taskfile brings nothing to the table. It cannot compete with existing automation tools. It doesn't even promise to be better than existing automation tools...
I mean, give me at least some reason to believe it could be better than what I already have... to me it looks like the people who wrote it simply never saw what's already there. Kind of like a university project where students write a simplistic compiler for a subset of C language... It's nice that they tried their hand, but they have a long way before they actually produce something useful.
This is the most real criticism of makefiles I've seen in this thread. There's fixes for it, but it usually involves parsing `--print-data-base` output, which is pretty awkward without reaching for a helper language like python/perl/ruby, and that then reduces portability and the batteries-included stuff that makefiles enjoy. It really does need a fix of some kind in make-core.
Given that targets may be conditionally defined, having built-in documentation of existing targets is _more_ critical - and it should take into account such conditions.
Taskfile brings nothing to the table. It cannot compete with existing automation tools. It doesn't even promise to be better than existing automation tools...
I mean, give me at least some reason to believe it could be better than what I already have... to me it looks like the people who wrote it simply never saw what's already there. Kind of like a university project where students write a simplistic compiler for a subset of C language... It's nice that they tried their hand, but they have a long way before they actually produce something useful.