I think this post is well intentioned but misses the point entirely. GOOS=darwin GOARCH=arm64 go build -ldflags="-X 'main.Version=v1.2.3'"
Executing this with variables for os/arch/version is not straightforward in a makefile. You might argue that it's a flaw with the `go build` command, but replace go with cargo/dotnet/maven and you have the same problem.> AFAIK, Just doesn't have any way to mark "this task is complete, so don't re-run it" What does a makefile look like for "install this list of dependencies with pip/homebrew/apt, and don't run it twice?" > It also doesn't have file-based dependendicies, which are pretty common for any kind of programming C and C++ compilers at this stage are the only places that I work with file based dependencies. Unless you explicitly declare all the headers as dependencies in a makefile, make won't rebuild a cpp file if you change a header. IME ninja (plus cmake to generate it) has entirely superseded make in this space. Tools and languages comes with it's own build tool (see above - go/cargo/dotnet/etc) or state tracking (docker) that break make's assumption of file based dependencies. > Why would I want to lose all of Make's flexibility and power in exchange for slightly prettier UI syntax? Because every make file I've ever used in recent memory has been 30% workarounds to avoid file based dependencies, and work around subtle footguns that make has, rather than actually doing what I want it to do - execute a build command. |
It looks like this:
> C and C++ compilers at this stage are the only places that I work with file based dependencies. Unless you explicitly declare all the headers as dependencies in a makefile, make won't rebuild a cpp file if you change a header. IME ninja (plus cmake to generate it) has entirely superseded make in this space. Tools and languages comes with it's own build tool (see above - go/cargo/dotnet/etc) or state tracking (docker) that break make's assumption of file based dependencies.In our Python example above, you have a file-based dependency between requirements.txt and your virtual environment. And then you have a file-based dependency on your virtual-environment's Python for whatever task you're trying to run.
> Because every make file I've ever used in recent memory has been 30% workarounds to avoid file based dependencies, and work around subtle footguns that make has, rather than actually doing what I want it to do - execute a build command.
Why would you want to avoid expressing your dependencies? File dependencies exist, and are the simplest / most correct model for 75% of all build automation. When somebody has to sit down and read your Makefile, isn't it nice to have a way to express "these are the files that actually matter for task X"?