Using Makefile(s) for Go

Post by frou_dh » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

boomlinde wrote: post #53

panpanna wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Make is more than a build system, it's also an automation tool. It gives you a fairly flexible format for managing different tasks with shared variables and autocompletion and more. You can do it with a bunch of shell scripts too but I prefer having everything in a single file.

> Make is more than a build system, it's also an automation tool. I agree with that, but I don't believe that the GP said otherwise. Make is an automation tool, but what it aims to automate is exactly dependency tracking. Other features, like actually performing the tasks, are off-loaded to the shell and other tools. > It gives you a fairly flexible format for managing different tasks with shared variables and autoco…

Post by throwaway894345 » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

Foxboron wrote: post #81

throwaway894345 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point, but make solves the problem rather poorly. Besides the poor UX, it only knows the thing it built most recently, as opposed to maintaining a cache of things it has _ever_ built. And since it doesn't have a cache, it definitely doesn't have a distributed cache, although you could conceivably try to shoehorn NFS or something similar. Lastly, it's not reproducible. It's not going to fail a build…

I agree with the observation. But the alternatives are grossly over-engineered or a case study in NIH. I'm sticking with Makefiles until someone can present something better. >Something like Bazel theoretically solves this problem, but it's poorly documented and non-trivial to use or operate. Other Bazel/Blaze derivatives are worse with respect to usage/operation/correctness. I have night terrors from listening to tw…

Post by frou_dh » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #66

mikegirouard wrote: post #12

It's really frustrating seeing so many Makefiles that don't _make_ anything. Make syntax is really odd. I see so many folks go out of their way to deal w/quirks of make when they really just need a shell script. You can see this anti-pattern very quickly when you see `.PHONY` targets for everything. I think make is useful for some aspects of go. GOPATH is becoming less relevant now, but still helpful when you want to…

Is there a way to easily have something like make targets in a shell script, without a ton of boilerplate? > Make syntax is really odd I don't find it particularly strange, except my biggest peeve - the insistence on tabs!

    #!/bin/sh
    set -e

    case "$1" in
        build)
            ;;
        run)
            ;;
        clean)
            ;;
        *)
            echo "unknown: $1"; exit 2
            ;;
    esac

    #!/bin/sh
    set -e

    test $# -gt 0

    build() {
        :
    }

    run() {
        :
    }

    clean() {
        :
    }

    "$@"

Post by GordonS » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

frou_dh wrote: post #95

GordonS wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to easily have something like make targets in a shell script, without a ton of boilerplate? > Make syntax is really odd I don't find it particularly strange, except my biggest peeve - the insistence on tabs!

Here's a named task runner shellscript (as compared to a Makefile full of .PHONY being used as a named task runner). #!/bin/sh set -e case "$1" in build) ;; run) ;; clean) ;; *) echo "unknown: $1"; exit 2 ;; esac Someone else ITT hinted it could be done like the following. But the last line is dubious because it will happily run anything on PATH. #!/bin/sh set -e test $# -gt 0 build() { : } run() { : } clean() { : }…

Post by knowsuchagency » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 12:01 AM UTC