@lanodan @joeyh @suetanvil make foo -> ./foo
cat Makefile -> no such file
the first rule of the Makefile club is to not have a Makefile
@toast @joeyh @suetanvil Good luck building a system without ever putting that into a Makefile (See BSDs) or emulation of them (build files are just because GNU make is horrible).
@lanodan @joeyh @suetanvil pff, I just use ninja (and/or samurai, the c99 compatible implementation) :^)
@toast nah, if Makefiles are to be thrown away it's going to be Plan9 mkfiles, ninja awfully sucks and I had enough design issues with Michael Forney's software.
@lanodan akshually, what if we just did everything in zsh scripts :^)
@lanodan zsh has less dependencies than bash, which is the most common implementation of /bin/sh on linux-based systems, which in turn is the backing shell for makefiles
doing everything in zsh scripts is less bloated than makefiles, confirmed
@toast bash (or zsh) should never be the /bin/sh implementation because of how bad it is at being small and POSIX compliant.
@ivesen @toast Ah yeah, the shell which forked python2 and aims to have compatibility with bash, and so is going to be epic bloat.


I think I know what you're trying to do and it makes you a bad person.

Fortunately for your immor(t)al soul, all I get is "make: *** No targets. Stop."

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!