funky VS run

could combine it with something like: https://github.com/bbugyi200/funky

However, my favorite of this genre is the strangely named funky, which "takes shell functions to the next level by making them easier to define, more flexible, and more interactive."

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.