Cake VS run

This is why 90-99% of our builds are done with Cake. It isolates all of it and you can run the build locally if you want.

A good starting point of you want to get started with Cake is our website at https://cakebuild.net/

I don't think it will get too much confusion, but there is a build system called Cake: https://cakebuild.net/

You may use other tools too: psake, make, cake, fake or any other *ake you are familiar with. I look at them as a tools that make build tasks behind simple commands and help me answer: How did I run that code again?

NAnt was quite a popular build tool used by projects of all sizes targeting .NET Framework on Windows. I have written many complex build systems using NAnt in the past. But XML based DSL was quite clunky to use and maintain. Besides, it was always a daunting task to explain to a new dev on the team. With .NET Core/.NET becoming a cross-platform framework, CAKE and FAKE gained a lot of adoption providing a C# and F# based DSL for build tasks accordingly.

Cake (C# Make) - simple, easy to set up, and with a lot of extensions scripting with C#.

I got the example and the answer I needed on this thread: https://github.com/cake-build/cake/discussions/3564

For those not familiar with it, Cake is a build automation system with a C#-based DSL. It is based on the concept of tasks, which are small units of work, like restoring packages, building, or testing, which can have dependencies on, or trigger, other tasks.

Just a note: there's already a very active community of the same name for the build utility Cake.

Looks interesting! Although the name clashes with Cake (C# Make) project which could be confusing - https://cakebuild.net/

I've been using Run [0] for this purposes.

[0]: https://github.com/TekWizely/run

To the extent that posts like these evolve into discussing the merits of Make as a task runner, I would like to offer my tool for review:

* https://github.com/TekWizely/run

I built it to feel like make, but be better at managing tasks and wrappers.

If you are evaluating task runners and appreciate the simplicity of Make's syntax, I hope you'll give Run a try.

I invite you take a look at Run, a similar tool that I maintain:

* https://github.com/TekWizely/run

Support for including other Runfiles was recently introduced, with support for globbing and the ability to indicate if an error should be generated if no files are found.

Unrelated to this topic, I invite you take a look at my project which a tool purpose-built to be a better version of what your makefile became:

Run: Task runner that helps you easily manage and invoke small scripts and wrappers

https://github.com/TekWizely/run

Defining commands feels like make, but comes with a bunch of extras targeted at the needs of a task-runner.

I hope you'll check it out!

This looks like an interesting way to manage scripts globally. I could even see it able to manage n-sub-commands deep (vs usual "command sub-command" - maybe it already does?) by just trying to resolve each argument as a dir until you find a script to execute.

If you're interested in ways to better-manage small scripts and wrappers more locally, please take a look at my project, Run:

https://github.com/TekWizely/run

For those looking for a powerful task runners that feel like a makefile, please take a look at Run:

https://github.com/TekWizely/run

It's better a managing and invoking tasks and generates help text from comments.