just

Your coworker's experience is more principled: Make is a mediocre tool for executing commands. It wasn't ever designed for that. Although it is pretty common to see what you are mentioning in projects because it doesn't require installing a dependency. For a repo where an easy to install (single binary) dependency is a non-issue, consider using just. [1] You get `just -l` where you can see all the command available, the ability to use different languages, and overall simpler command writing. [1] https://github.com/casey/just

This is fantastic, but I'd say that this solution is somewhat in response to this open issue from 2019: https://github.com/casey/just/issues/429 I really wish just was included as a package in distributions.

Reminds me of `just`. I love `just`. (Although I've never used make...) https://github.com/casey/just

One primary design goal togomak had from the beginning was concurrency. All tasks run concurrently, unless a `depends_on` argument is mentioned. `just` didn't support that when I was initially building togomak, but there is a feature coming in soon which I am looking forward to: https://github.com/casey/just/pull/1562 . While I was building togomak, I read through Dagger [1], Earthly [2], Concourse CI [3], Jest and Make along with the stuff I was already working with - Jenkins, GitHub actions and GitLab CI. Dagger [1] is really great, I like its design - it supports writing pipelines in Python, Typescript, Go and a few more languages. togomak tries to abstract away a lot of it. Such as dependency management (in the case of python, the requirement of a python interpreter, and its package managers, etc). togomak is just a single statically-

It is amazing to me that people call Java verbose when you have things like this to declare a simple variable: variable "service" { type = string description = "Name of the service" } HCL isn't a bonus, it is a hinderance. If you're going to build something like this, you might as well just use TypeScript or Python as your backend language. Beyond that, this just looks like yet another task executor... as you say, like make. At which point, you might as well just use a task executor. If make is not your liking, how about https://github.com/casey/just

for this purpose Just[1] with a python shebang line works great [1] https://github.com/casey/just

They can get quite gnarly, check out Just as a modern alternative: https://github.com/casey/just

I saw this further down in the thread: https://github.com/casey/just Looks like a version of make optimized for running commands instead of builds.

You mean, just? https://github.com/casey/just

Dropping a link here for convenience: https://github.com/casey/just

My number one reason to use make is to have a single centralized location for project commands. If I see a Makefile at the root, I can quickly scan it and have an overview of what high level actions I might execute. Note that I have recently switched to Just (https://github.com/casey/just). While not technically the exact feature set as make, it covers all of the ground for what I typically do. It gets the benefit of history and discards a lot of make cruft to make a more predictable experience.

Just is already 'taken' in the Rust community as it is a command runner utility like make: https://github.com/casey/just

An alternative I quite like is “just”. https://github.com/casey/just

How does this compare with `just`[0]? I've never written a Makefile but I'm a big fan of `just`. [0] https://github.com/casey/just

Most (all?) of your Makefile targets don't represent actual files to 'make'. You're using make to run a bunch of tasks, including where tasks may depend on other tasks having been run before. A task-runner tool like `just` is better suited to this task. https://github.com/casey/just `just` has some nice UX improvements over `make`. (e.g. doesn't require soft tabs, can list recipes out of the box, recipes can take command line arguments, supports .env files, can be run from any subdirectory).