News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Make vs. Tup (2016) by geezerjay on Monday November 19, 2018 @02:13PM (#18488859)
> but the problem in moving to a better build system is that makefiles are so convoluted and hard to reason about

Nowadays Makefiles are largely autogenerated by the build system. How many people are actually editing makefiles by hand in non-pet projects?

Re:Make vs. Tup (2016) by cat199 on Monday November 19, 2018 @10:02PM (#18491537)
> How many people are actually editing makefiles by hand in non-pet projects?

people that don't want makefiles so convoluted and hard to reason about that they can't edit them by hand..

i suggest taking a look at any of the BSD build systems and seeing what sane use of make can look like (PMake and not GNUMake; imho PMake's language makes this doable; GNUMake's language makes autotools and other mess-generating 'helpers' required)

    http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/mk/bsd.prog.mk
    https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/12/share/mk/
Re:Make vs. Tup (2016) by geezerjay on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @02:07AM (#18492287)
> people that don't want makefiles so convoluted and hard to reason about that they can't edit them by hand..

You've missed the point. The point was that nowadays editing or even looking at a makefile is far from standard practice, because makefiles are autogenerated by the build system and are closer to temp files than to project files.

Who wastes their time reasoning about a temp file that just works?

Re:Make vs. Tup (2016) by jschwartzi on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @12:20AM (#18491958)
I wrote a build system for an embedded system with two processors and lots of code sharing across three platforms in Make because no other tool would let me program the whole DAG in the same language. The makefiles generated themselves.
Re:Make vs. Tup (2016) by bhengaij on Monday November 19, 2018 @06:52PM (#18490755)
Pond meet frog