Never loved make. First used it in the early nineties and found the syntax obscure and error messages cryptic.
My response to this article would be, if make is so great why did they have to invent 'configure' and 'xmkmf'? And why do people continue to create new build tools every couple of years?
Yeah, I mean I guess it worked, but unreasonably effective? Hardly.
Err, pedantically, configure was not for cross Linux distro compatibility, but for cross unix compatibility. It existed long before Linux was a sparkle in Linus’s eye.
And even then, it handled even some non unix environments as well.
> … why do people continue to create new build tools every couple of years?
Seems like a rite[0] of passage to some degree. Perhaps similar to people talking a stab at The Next Actually Correct CMS, and The Next Object System That Doesn’t Suck, or The Next Linux Distro For Smart People.
i've turned to cmake to do some really weird dependency management for various script calling. It's much more scriptable/friendly than make in its modern form but obviously no python :)
My response to this article would be, if make is so great why did they have to invent 'configure' and 'xmkmf'? And why do people continue to create new build tools every couple of years?
Yeah, I mean I guess it worked, but unreasonably effective? Hardly.