Show HN: Bud – Command Runner inspired by Make
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Show HN: Bud – Command Runner inspired by Make
#2The three arguments for not using Make are I believe, all false.
> Can't pass arguments on the command line
`DESTDIR=foo make` or `make DESTDIR=foo` both work.. So yes you can.
> Can't reference other make target
What is meant by 'reference' ? You can't call them? Of course you can? You can't use their output? Use a temporary file (i.e. the target name).
> Make target cannot use the same name as a file
This is what .PHONY is for.
I'm all for building better tools, but I don't see how this is an improvement.
Re: Show HN: Bud – Command Runner inspired by Make
#3The three arguments for not using Make are I believe, all false. > Can't pass arguments on the command line `DESTDIR=foo make` or `make DESTDIR=foo` both work.. So yes you can. > Can't reference other make target What is meant by 'reference' ? You can't call them? Of course you can? You can't use their output? Use a temporary file (i.e. the target name). > Make target cannot use the same name as a file This is what .…
Your statements are correct, but they are workarounds, and doesn't cover all the use cases. And they usually requires a StackOverflow search. For the above 2 reasons, I consider them to be limitations.
1. Problem is You have to explicit define a number of arguments and they have to be named. Consider the situation where you want to call an arbitary number of arguments, can't do that. (ref: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2214575/passing-argument...)
2. You cannot reference the target in the body of another target. (ref: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3267145/makefile-execute...) Consider below:
.PHONY: a b
a:
echo A
b:
echo B
a # can't do this
echo B
With Bud, bash script become your Makefile and bash functions become your Make target. You can have arbitary numbers of arguments, you can reference other targets since they are just functions, and you don't need to explicitly add your target to .PHONY.
There are other reasons you want to move away from Make. For example:
* Defining variable in your target body requires workaround (ref: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1909188/define-make-vari...)
Re: Show HN: Bud – Command Runner inspired by Make
#4The three arguments for not using Make are I believe, all false. > Can't pass arguments on the command line `DESTDIR=foo make` or `make DESTDIR=foo` both work.. So yes you can. > Can't reference other make target What is meant by 'reference' ? You can't call them? Of course you can? You can't use their output? Use a temporary file (i.e. the target name). > Make target cannot use the same name as a file This is what .…
Your statements are correct, but they are workarounds, and doesn't cover all the use cases. And they usually requires a StackOverflow search. For the above 2 reasons, I consider them to be limitations. 1. Problem is You have to explicit define a number of arguments and they have to be named. Consider the situation where you want to call an arbitary number of arguments, can't do that. (ref: https://stackoverflow.com/q…
So.. you just don't want to type `./my-script foo` you want to type `bud foo`.. Cool story bro.
Re: Show HN: Bud – Command Runner inspired by Make
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your statements are correct, but they are workarounds, and doesn't cover all the use cases. And they usually requires a StackOverflow search. For the above 2 reasons, I consider them to be limitations. 1. Problem is You have to explicit define a number of arguments and they have to be named. Consider the situation where you want to call an arbitary number of arguments, can't do that. (ref: https://stackoverflow.com/q…
So.. you just don't want to type `./my-script foo` you want to type `bud foo`.. Cool story bro.
No need for the sarcasm, it's open source, you don't have to use it. But to answer your question, you can't do `./my-script foo`, because you can't call a function directly as argument.
If you also want auto-completion, you bascially re-implemented Bud.