Sadly it's not ready for prime-time yet (early designing stage), so I won't link my highly unfinished project.
Build Tools – Make, no more
11–20 of 143 posts
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#12He's making the wrong assumption that you don't need to setup a build environment when building with make, but to have gcc you will still also need to install g++ and build-tools. Also, he refers to building on Windows using yet another specialist tool, but have you recently tried building anything C++ on Windows when you don't have visual studio, or even worse, CYGWIN installed?
When you make such a statement, then please show me a makefile that's not 10.000 lines long, that will do the same as this, but without NPM and 'downloading half of the internet'.
gulp.task('scripts', function() {
// Minify and copy all JavaScript (except vendor scripts)
return gulp.src(paths.scripts)
.pipe(coffee())
.pipe(uglify())
.pipe(concat('all.min.js'))
.pipe(gulp.dest('build/js'));
});
I submit that's impossible, simply because this stuff took 2 years to evolve (for the Javascript toolchain, that is) and a lot of people went through hours of frustration trying out alternative methods.Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#13Why would you need Grunt just to compile LESS?
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#14Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#15So he's saying use 'make' instead of gulp/grunt and then he submits an example where it's as easy as piping through GCC. He's making the wrong assumption that you don't need to setup a build environment when building with make, but to have gcc you will still also need to install g++ and build-tools. Also, he refers to building on Windows using yet another specialist tool, but have you recently tried building anything…
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#16So he's saying use 'make' instead of gulp/grunt and then he submits an example where it's as easy as piping through GCC. He's making the wrong assumption that you don't need to setup a build environment when building with make, but to have gcc you will still also need to install g++ and build-tools. Also, he refers to building on Windows using yet another specialist tool, but have you recently tried building anything…
Not that I agree with him. Being able to do some printf debugging (or even use a real debugger!) to troubleshoot issues is a big plus that he doesn't mention.
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#17I'm currently working on a build tool that doesn't work using the traditional "makefile" approach. Instead it's designed as a Python library, and you have the full power of Python at your disposal. Sadly it's not ready for prime-time yet (early designing stage), so I won't link my highly unfinished project.
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#18I'm currently working on a build tool that doesn't work using the traditional "makefile" approach. Instead it's designed as a Python library, and you have the full power of Python at your disposal. Sadly it's not ready for prime-time yet (early designing stage), so I won't link my highly unfinished project.
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#19Misses the fundamental point that Make is broken for so many things. To begin with you have to have a single target for each file produced. Generating all the targets to get around this is a nightmare that results in unreadable debug messages and horribly unpredictable call paths. nix tried to solve much of this, but I agree it can't compete with the bazillion other options.
Re: Build Tools – Make, no more
#20Misses the fundamental point that Make is broken for so many things. To begin with you have to have a single target for each file produced. Generating all the targets to get around this is a nightmare that results in unreadable debug messages and horribly unpredictable call paths. nix tried to solve much of this, but I agree it can't compete with the bazillion other options.
It does not miss it, just ignores it. The author states that there are lots of things we can improve but the point is that we have too many variations on the theme without converging to a solution that has few (or no) dependencies and comes with built-in build knowledge and the ability to discover what you want rather than make you declare it. Such a tool should be: - Zero (or few) dependencies. Likely written in pla…
Almost every new project I download starts with a sad, manual, and demoralizing installation of a bunch of third-party stuff that you have to google to find out what's missing. And it's not educational at all, because in a few years all these tools will now be obsolete.
(The best project I ever encountered was the Stripe CTF, which almost always used just one command to install a complete working copy of everything you needed and didn't have. I'm still impressed with that.)