That assertion has no objective meaning, or even a point. Change for the sake of change does more to create problems instead of fixing them. Is there actually anything that is broken in Make's specification?

Your only remotely objective criticism of Make is that "it just won't evolve". That's not a reason at all, and only advocates change for the sake of change.

Perhaps you could start to have a case if you could identify any aspect of Make that has problems that need fixing. Until then, any argument based on vage notions of evolving is pointless.

I'm not the critic. You misunderstood the thread. Another user observed that lots of people have made other tools because they found make wanting and that make evolved to add features (presumably borrowing good ideas from its challengers). If you must be defensive, take it up with the authors of the aforementioned make-rivals.