News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A simple makefile is a unicorn by skohan on Friday January 12, 2018 @05:34AM (#16131882)
> What would you want a make replacement to look like?

Admittedly I haven't given a ton of thought to this specific problem, but here goes:

I actually like Make from a conceptual standpoint. I think it's a good idea to codify build orchestration in code rather than non-human-readable output from a GUI application. My main gripe is that it seems to be very much a 1.0 tool: it was build to solve a specific problem, and then features were added as needed. I would love to have an iteration on that concept which benefits from what we've learned from Make while rounding off the rough edges of what feels like the result of a largely ad-hoc design process.

As far as what that would look like: I would like to see a concise, low-level API for doing the kinds of things Makefiles do (i.e. defining a dependency graph, setting up build parameters etc), and better tools for composition.

Also I would sacrifice a bit of terseness for the benefit of readability. For instance an arbitrary keyword like `Phony` could be replaced by a more extensible name-spacing syntax which lets you know exactly what's going on.

There are no comments on this comment yet.