He's author of great stuff out there, but I think his works should be treated more as showing the way of doing this or that than making you stick to his particular implementations (I'm not implying they're bad, though).
For instance I prefer runit over daemontools, but quite likely without daemontools there wouldn't be runit. (Actually I want to try s6 [1] soon, as it seems another step in evolution of process supervision tooling.)
But his "build system" is actually unnecessarily non-standard and clunky. I am against autohell, but carefully crafted handmade Makefiles are really nice.
He's author of great stuff out there, but I think his works should be treated more as showing the way of doing this or that than making you stick to his particular implementations (I'm not implying they're bad, though). For instance I prefer runit over daemontools, but quite likely without daemontools there wouldn't be runit. (Actually I want to try s6 [1] soon, as it seems another step in evolution of process supervision tooling.)
But his "build system" is actually unnecessarily non-standard and clunky. I am against autohell, but carefully crafted handmade Makefiles are really nice.