Re:The only build system that might someday replace make (2010)
by zellyn on Saturday November 23, 2019 @04:06PM
(#21616546)
Bazel is about as far from redo as you can get: they aim to solve very different problems. If you have a huge monorepo, and thus need distributed caching and distributed builds, and cross-language dependency tracking and incremental rebuilds, Bazel is for you. It has the advantage of being built _after_ Google understood all the places where lack of rigor or accidentally-too-capable build language features cause trouble.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The only build system that might someday replace make (2010)
by zellyn on Saturday November 23, 2019 @04:07PM
(#21616553)
(At Square, we currently use Pants for our Java monorepo. Don’t do that; we’re switching.)
Re:The only build system that might someday replace make (2010)
by csande17 on Saturday November 23, 2019 @09:27PM
(#21617974)
What's wrong with pants?
Re:The only build system that might someday replace make (2010)
by zellyn on Saturday November 23, 2019 @09:49PM
(#21618034)
It's not widely used. Pure Java (rather than Scala) seems off the beaten track. The documentation is sparse. The IDE plugins are less capable, and less documented. It is sloppy about rigorously declaring needed files. It's slow just to start up. Actual Python rather than Starlark as a build language. The API from custom rules to internals is leakier (I believe). Bazel has a huge ecosystem of third-party rules to do all sort of things.