> Interacting with CLI tools using only env vars as arguments is cartoonishly bad dev experience.

Make excels at what it's design to do: specify a configurable DAG of tasks that generate artifacts, execute them, and automatically determine which subgraph requires updates and which can be skipped by reusing their artifacts.

I wonder: which tool do you believe does this better than Make?

▲

system33- 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Tup. https://gittup.org/tup/ https://gittup.org/tup/make_vs_tup.html

But the Internet’s make mind-share means you still have to know make.

Edit: and make lets you use make to essentially run scripts/utils. People love to abuse make for that. Can’t do that with tup.

	▲	motorest 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Tup. I don't think Tup managed to present any case. Glancing at the page, the only conceivable synthetic scenarios where they can present Tup in a positive light is built times of > 10k files, and only in a synthetic scenario involving recompiling partially built projects. And what's the upside of those synthetic scenarios? Shaving w couple of seconds in rebuilds? That's hardly a compelling scenario.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	kiitos an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Tup `tup` relies on a stateful database, which makes it incomparable to `make`.
	▲	aDyslecticCrow 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Abuse? Runnig linters, code analysers, configuration tools, template engines, spellcheckers, pulling dependencies, building dependencies with different build systems. Sufficiently complex project need to invole alot of wierd extra scripts, and if a build system cannot fulfil it... the n it needs to be wrapped in a complex bash script anyway.