Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make for hipsters

mattandre.ws

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 200 posts

Re: Make for hipsters

#121

Post by nemild »

sangnoir wrote: post #97
collyw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are far more developers who will jump on the latest new shiny with no good reason.

Which is why I don't pity them when they scream "Javascript fatigue!". Put down the shiny new tool and back away slowly: you might hurt yourself and others.

I think they don't know better - as any relatively new web-ish dev has grown up in a server-side javascript ecosystem that's maturing rapidly in the last 6-7 years, and so has led to a lot of churn (frontend frameworks, js build systems).

Separately, on the information side, there just aren't as many articles on old, but stable technology - and so if you open up HN, all they're seeing is the latest; if your team doesn't have good experienced devs on it and if you haven't learnt it in college/bootcamp then you'll pick what is publicized.

Re: Make for hipsters

#122

Post by nemild »

stevetrewick wrote: post #54
capote wrote: post #10

Do so many people who go on this site not know how to make makefiles? Also why is it for hipsters? Or is the article for hipsters? Why does the author call his own published notes factually inaccurate? Why is it hacky to use a makefile? Is this all a big ruse?

I've been cranking out code since the 80s and I can count the number of times I've had to create a make file one my fingers. Not everyone is working in the same domain with the same tools as you are.

I loved that old joke: Only one person has ever created a Makefile from scratch, and everyone else just copies and modifies it.

Re: Make for hipsters

#123

Post by nemild »

douche wrote: post #76
capote wrote: post #10

Do so many people who go on this site not know how to make makefiles? Also why is it for hipsters? Or is the article for hipsters? Why does the author call his own published notes factually inaccurate? Why is it hacky to use a makefile? Is this all a big ruse?

Every time I encounter the hodgepodge mess of bower, npm, grunt and gulp scripts that our front-end developers have erected to compile their javascript, I really wish they had taken the half-hour to learn make, instead of all of these other tools that don't work quite the same and do about half of what make will do.

And some of which will be rapidly deprecated.

Re: Make for hipsters

#124

Post by zeveb »

Make is old and crufty, but it's still the best at what it does.

What I'd really love right now is a program which can look at a Go source tree and write make rules such that I don't have to run go build or go install unless dependencies have actually changed. It's really annoying to be pushing new images when nothing has actually changed.

Re: Make for hipsters

#125

Post by nzjrs »

nemild wrote: post #122
stevetrewick wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been cranking out code since the 80s and I can count the number of times I've had to create a make file one my fingers. Not everyone is working in the same domain with the same tools as you are.

I loved that old joke: Only one person has ever created a Makefile from scratch, and everyone else just copies and modifies it.

I thought that was an autotools joke. Make is simple.

Re: Make for hipsters

#126

Post by LukeShu »

amelius wrote: post #113
coldtea wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that be the responsibility of Make? Of course you need to convert those externally -- with e.g. the C preprocessor for C files...

Well, Make could figure them out, for example by using the Linux ptrace syscall, or by using libfuse. However, my biggest problem with Make is still that it does not allow for dependencies in the form of variables.

What do you mean by "dependencies in the form of variables"?

Re: Make for hipsters

#127

Post by chongli »

madeofpalk wrote: post #85
mrighele wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is that the prevailing trend in web development changes every six months. I wonder how many developers that know grunt you will find in 3 years.

I see this rhetoric being thrown around all the time, but I don't actually think its true in practice. Grunt came out in 2011 and Gulp came out 2 years later with a superior (IMHO) code-over-convention approach. They've kinda been doing their thing since then. Statements like seem to be nothing but FUD.

It's not about when things come out, it's when people start talking about them. I've been on an for 4 years (a relative newcomer, I know) and this is the first time I've seen either Grunt or Gulp mentioned.

Re: Make for hipsters

#129

Post by tomc1985 »

coldtea wrote: post #110
capote wrote: post #10

Do so many people who go on this site not know how to make makefiles? Also why is it for hipsters? Or is the article for hipsters? Why does the author call his own published notes factually inaccurate? Why is it hacky to use a makefile? Is this all a big ruse?

> Do so many people who go on this site not know how to make makefiles? You'd be surprised. Especially if they work outside C/C++, and do e.g. mostly web development, they neither care much, not know much about makefiles. At best the know to configure, make and make install something on their Linux, but most haven't even tried that. > Also why is it for hipsters? Or is the article for hipsters? The article is (suppos…

"Hipster" carries a more detailed connotation than that, at least in the US.

(Lots of fond memories arguing about the term in europe, where the word seems to lack its snobby, negative feel)

Re: Make for hipsters

#130

Post by Millennium »

nneonneo wrote: post #59
pawadu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not be sound harsh, but your problem lies here My personal preference for everything is spaces You want a tool that has been around longer than you do stuff your way. I think it is better if learn to work with the tools and accept that there is a reason some things work in certain ways.

I've already configured my editors and tools to work with Make, and I'm not so much complaining about Make here as I am pointing out one of its most annoying warts. I am a pretty heavy Make user and I think it's great (not least of which because it's so darn ubiquitous). And, not to sound harsh, but if you always "accept that there is a reason some things work in certain ways" without questioning if there may be a be…

This is true, but it's important not to lose sight of the difference between "questioning if there may be a better way" and bikeshedding. The former is often useful; the latter usually isn't.
Post reply on HN