skore

I see no way to get a hold of that particular soundtrack and searching the web failed me. How did you get a copy? Any tips?

Very likely, yes. I'm generating my own makefiles anyways, so generating something that build2 could consume should be possible, too.

Would it be appropriate to open a github issue for discussing this further? I would like to share some example for how my current setup is working and having the github syntax available would be helpful.

Very VERY interesting!

The one thing that I'm currently struggling to find information on is dynamic dependency handling (dyndep in ninja terms).

Is that something that build2 covers as well? Any resource you could point me to?

That looks very good! I wonder if I can make it fit my file-based approach.

edit: Yeah, doesn't seem like it.

I will check it out, thank you for the suggestion - what I glanced at seems very interesting.

I've seen it before but discarded it because since my workflow is heavily file-based, I DO need makes capacity as a build system, not just a task runner. Will check it out to see whether that changed.

edit: Yeah, I can't see how I can make it work for a file-based approach.

To me, the core of the syntax is:

    target: prereq | ooprereq
        recipe

In my eyes, the most important thing when building something that is complex is the dependency graph and it makes sense to make the syntax for defining the graph as simple as possible. I think the make syntax just nails it and most of the other approaches I have seen so far add complexity without any benefit. In fact, most of the complexity they introduce seems to stem from confusion on the side of the developer being unable to simplify what they're trying to express.

At the level of variable handling and so forth, make is slightly annoying but manageable.

Anything beyond that - yeah, I'm with you, a lot of that is terrible.

6 years into writing my own kind of SSC, based entirely on make.

AMA ;-)

I do understand you're not reading the replies and I'm trying to not make the same mistake that you did, so I'm not responding to the emotional content (which I could, at length, in kind) of your message, but what I think is the meat of your misunderstanding.

I find it odd that you're focussing on making people understand that many in your profession care. It has been my experience that most health care providers… care.

Let's suppose that health care is like any other profession - let's say it's just like programming, something most people understand deeply on here.

We all know programmers who care and programmers who don't care. The best programmers I know are the ones who care, are competent, but also able and willing to have their understanding of the subject matter challenged. They're not married to their craft - they keep the right distance to excel at it.

The worst ones I know are those who care just as much, but are utterly incompetent. The ones who are so deep into it that they literally cannot see any other way. To them, everything is clear and obvious. They're willing, enthusiastic and overjoyed to be working. And they're wrong. There is not a codebase they touch where every hour of work they put in produces ten or twenty times as much work for others, later on.

I think caring about your craft is a force multiplier and it's a necessary one. You don't want a mindless drone who doesn't give a damn about either your health or your codebase, no matter how competent they are. To care means to have a vital part of you engaged in such a way that all that you could bring to the table does get there. But it has to be lightly held and accepting of being challenged.

You care. I get it. But that doesn't mean everybody cares. (Again, really struggling here to not respond in kind with examples of people I have met who clearly did not care.) And even if everybody did care - some people are actually more useless the more they care.

But - it's up to the customers (or patients) to navigate that landscape. There has to be a mutual understanding that all parties involved are just human and can make mistakes. Our understanding of health care moves forward and things that are standard care today had to be invented, sometimes just a few years ago, often replacing things that used to be just as firmly a standard, before. Challenging what is accepted practice should be a healthy part of this interaction.

There's a limit to how many people care. There is a limit to how useful it is that people care. There is a limit to how effective you can be for your patients when you walk around with a chip on your shoulder, thinking that people just don't get how much you care.

Thiel actually lampshades this himself:

> Warp drive is in fact hard to take seriously because its basic physics are so far beyond the furthest reaches of our knowledge as to debilitate would-be researchers—not to mention reasonable doubts about the friendliness of faraway foreign species. (Some of them, I assume, are good aliens.)