Consider that the parent comment author might already be making pull requests to the projects of his interest. The snarky "PRs welcome" is therefore unnecessary and unwelcome. Everyone here knows PRs are welcome in an open source project. Some of us do send PRs. But whether someone sends PRs or not has no bearing on whether one can appreciate or criticize an idea as long as it is done in a substantive manner.
In fact, whether the parent comment author sends PRs or not is orthogonal to his complaint that we have too many build systems that is increasing the burden on users and maintainers. If you have something to say against this point, please do so on its own merit in a substantive manner without insinuations or ad-hominem attacks.
Maybe Please is so dramatically better that it pulls tons of projects into its orbit! What a great outcome: I'd contribute PRs for every missing use case, accelerating the consolidation.
But if (as the site says) the goal is building something at parity but with a slightly different focus, then it can only produce further fragmentation. Projects that adopt Please inject dependencies on random S3 buckets and .bashrc edits. I can't accept that in the software I maintain, so any Please-built projects are de-facto inaccessible. That's bad.
By all means do what's best for ThoughtMachine, but publishing and promoting this makes building OS software harder, not easier.
This is awful demanding. Not entirely unexpected in tech tho
“Why don’t others fix my frustration in open source projects!” they shout with no hint of irony