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

Please – A cross-language build system

please.build

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 257 posts

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#121

Post by rhencke »

wpietri wrote: post #107
rhencke wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing can be hard not because you don't have something worth marketing, but because marketing is a skill-set largely orthogonal to software development.

That's only true if you define software development in a pretty particular way. For me, writing code is a way of solving problems for people. That involves listening to them to see how I can help. Then collaborating with them to iteratively make something that fits their needs. Which includes helping them adopt it and get productive with it. To me, all of that is part of software development. And that's most of the "…

To me, writing code is very much the same way - it is a human endeavor. But, over the years, I have learned that just not all people are the same way, and that's okay, too.

Growing up, one of the jobs I took was as a system's administrator at the same company my father worked at. It was a small company, maybe six people or so, doing contract work for aerospace. One of the older men who worked there held his Ph. D. in aerospace engineering. He was kind, warm and brilliant... but he struggled with things like sending coherent emails to clients. But that was okay - other people were able to take that on.

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#122

Post by tatskaari »

klodolph wrote: post #109
maxpert wrote: post #46

Have used it in a go mono-repo. It’s own convention on packages and bad integration with IDE makes it a hard sell for me. I mean I just paid for Goland IDE why would I waste my time integrating with something that might or might not work for others. It’s a very hard sell.

Go tools in general have poor integration with build systems other than "go build". One trick I find useful is to use Go modules (and therefore goimports, not goreturns) and structure your build so that it looks like a standard Go module build, even though it's really being built by some other system. In other words, it's a mix of making the build system conform to Go norms and making your IDE adapt to the remaining…

I recently added a config option so plz test will run tests in the package directory rather than the repo root (just like go test). Should make things a little easier.

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#125

Post by klodolph »

steeve wrote: post #115
klodolph wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a monstrosity? You need the JVM but the JVM doesn’t seem like a monster to me.

Bazel doesn’t need the JVM as it’s built into its self contained binary.

Hm, I guess my point was that it still needs the JVM, it just uses the bundled version. I guess that wasn’t clear.

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#127

Post by klodolph »

jart wrote: post #111
klodolph wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every ex-Google SRE I know is glad they don’t have to deal with Borgmon anymore. I don't think it’s popular these days.

All the more reason to invent something that improves upon it, since love it or not, it's a must have tool.

A Google engineering manager once told me that “back in the day, SREs got promoted for writing monitoring systems, and so we ended up with a bunch of unsupported monitoring systems”

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#128

Post by joshuamorton »

jart wrote: post #111
klodolph wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every ex-Google SRE I know is glad they don’t have to deal with Borgmon anymore. I don't think it’s popular these days.

All the more reason to invent something that improves upon it, since love it or not, it's a must have tool.

Not really, it's barely used anymore. Monarch has replaced it for most situations.

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#129

Post by BerkhanBerkdemi »

ironmagma wrote: post #78
RangerScience wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for making this! My rubric for documentation is "how many clicks to code". I found the installation instructions, and started to look for usage, but didn't find it. Too many clicks. That's where I'd start. PS - IMO the gold standard for this evaluation method is Sinatra.rb, which is zero clicks to code.

Are you referring to this [1]? I had to click Documentation to get here and still didn’t see any code... [1] http://sinatrarb.com/documentation.html

I think he was referring to the Intro page [1][2].

[1] http://sinatrarb.com/intro.html [2] https://github.com/sinatra/sinatra#readme

Re: Please – A cross-language build system

#130

Post by lvh »

grosales wrote: post #88
japgolly wrote: post #83

> If you're familiar with Blaze / Bazel, Buck or Pants you will probably find Please very familiar Yes, so why would I use Please over any of them? I've spent close to 10min reading and have no idea why this exists or why anyone would use it. It looks like Bazel with a different config format, in which case why wouldn't one just use Bazel?

I also was trying to figure out why I would use this over Bazel. Then I remember reading a story yesterday about how ex-googlers miss their tooling when they leave. Their CTO is an ex-googler, so maybe this is the reason.

But Bazel is developed by Google itself right now. Presumably if you missed Google tooling you'd rather use Bazel, no?

I'm not suggesting Bazel is perfect: I think e.g. Starlark's insistence on being a separate language does more harm than good. (FWIW I also think the JVM objection is a little silly.) But I am saying preferring the Google tooling would ostensibly mean you like Bazel a lot already :)

Post reply on HN