|
|
|
|
|
by Brian_K_White
960 days ago
|
|
This is not an alternative to make* any more than some random half-baked build.sh is. * gnu or otherwise, and why specify that in the first place anyway? If it did actually do a suitable job of replacing gnu make, would it not also suitably replace bsd or any other make? Is a person who says something like that a good source of ideas so deep and quality that they probably do improve upon those who created unix? make may not be the final build system for the rest of eternity, but all this is, is "I don't really understand the full job make does, so here is something which only does a simpler job which I do understand, and I like python." |
|
> did actually do a suitable job of replacing gnu make
The title does not say _a replacement_, it says _an alternative_. I never intended to replace GNU Make; if I said that anywhere — that was a mistake on my part.
> do improve upon those who created unix
I did not intend to improve upon UNIX ideas or philosophy. The improvements I am aiming for are:
- developer experience,
- conciseness and maintainability of the code.
…and these are being addressed for a narrow use case. For that use case, in my experience, Make is very often used.
I argue that within the bounds of this use case, this is an alternative which can be of use to improve productivity and everyday experience.
> I don't really understand the full job make does, so here is something which only does a simpler job which I do understand, and I like python
I classify these assumptions about my understanding or misunderstanding as ad hominem and unprofessional.