News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Piper: A proposal for a graphy pipe-based build system. Parent comment

Re:Piper: A proposal for a graphy pipe-based build system by epr on Monday April 24, 2023 @03:08PM (#35691772)
Please don't do that! Good reasons to borrow ideas from make would be familiarity for those coming from make, but definitely not because make is ergonomic. The entire reason you must put in tons of mental effort to grok this one true method of make usage I linked above is specifically because of how non-ergonomic make is out of the box.

My comment was meant to be practical advice considering make's popularity. A while back I wanted to replace a legacy script that generated Makefiles for a project at work, and I started out by making something very similar to Piper in python so it was easy for coworkers, etc, but ended up finding the guide I mentioned in my above comment while doing gcc dependency generation. Since I was targeting make underneath anyways, and my needs were less complex than I thought, I ended up scrapping my redundant python build tool.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Piper: A proposal for a graphy pipe-based build system by mattsan on Monday April 24, 2023 @03:11PM (#35691810)
Oops I worded it badly! I meant take some theory from Make and modify it to be more ergonomic before adding it into Piper. A la rethinking it all with new knowledge I gain.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Piper: A proposal for a graphy pipe-based build system by mst on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @09:22AM (#35700083)
If you haven't already, I'd seriously suggest having a look at redo (the theory but also apenwarr's implementation at https://github.com/apenwarr/redo).

It's not going in the same direction you are exactly but building a mental model of it in my head was salutary in terms of thinking through the purpose and implementation of build tools and hopefully it'll be similarly useful to you.

[ Parent | on HN ]