11–20 of 38 posts
what is wrong with make why does every language need to re invent packaging, building, etc. I think these people have no useful software to write so they rewrite the development stack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Make sucks? Because it's really limited and not expressive? Because it's not really a build system (nor is it a package manager or a dependency resolver or...)
> Because it's really limited and not expressive? It's neither of those unless you limit yourself to a lowest-common-denominator feature set. GNU Make, for example, is a Turing-complete, dynamic programming language and a CLI task runner. You can build a build system in GNU Make ( https://github.com/omercsp/simple-build-system ) just like you can do so in any other language. Make suffers from unfamiliar and somewhat…
what is wrong with make why does every language need to re invent packaging, building, etc. I think these people have no useful software to write so they rewrite the development stack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Make sucks? Because it's really limited and not expressive? Because it's not really a build system (nor is it a package manager or a dependency resolver or...)
> Because it's really limited and not expressive? It's neither of those unless you limit yourself to a lowest-common-denominator feature set. GNU Make, for example, is a Turing-complete, dynamic programming language and a CLI task runner. You can build a build system in GNU Make ( https://github.com/omercsp/simple-build-system ) just like you can do so in any other language. Make suffers from unfamiliar and somewhat…
You just answered the question "why does every language need to re invent packaging, building, etc." Because people don't want to build build systems in Make
is uv to python what dune is to OCaml?
Superficially, both uv and dune are also project runners. But dune is mainly a build tool, most important things dune does such as pre-processing, linking, compiling etc., are not needed in python in the first place (at least talking about pure python). You can use uv to create tarball/wheel but it's more akin to simple bundling than building in the dune sense. Dune can also run tests, but in uv you would need to delegate to something like pytest etc.
is uv to python what dune is to OCaml?
No I think uv is to python what opam is to ocaml, it's mostly a package/dependency manager. Superficially, both uv and dune are also project runners. But dune is mainly a build tool, most important things dune does such as pre-processing, linking, compiling etc., are not needed in python in the first place (at least talking about pure python). You can use uv to create tarball/wheel but it's more akin to simple bundli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because it's really limited and not expressive? It's neither of those unless you limit yourself to a lowest-common-denominator feature set. GNU Make, for example, is a Turing-complete, dynamic programming language and a CLI task runner. You can build a build system in GNU Make ( https://github.com/omercsp/simple-build-system ) just like you can do so in any other language. Make suffers from unfamiliar and somewhat…
The OCaml ecosystem tried the Make route, it was complex, turns out no one likes maintaining makefiles by hand, and they like opaque make rules even less. Like it or not, dune exists for a very good reason.