NUKE VS starlark

Is it similar to Nuke?

Another thing I could recommend is to use something like Nuke build system to automate more complex tasks that aren't good fit for csproj using C# code (for example - publishing and zipping self-contained release of some service for specific platform using current date and time or commit hash as version number).

testcontainers and https://github.com/dotnet/Docker.DotNet are on my to-do list to try out, but just like with something like https://nuke.build/ i can't see the value other than that the config would be c# instead of some flavour of yaml.

We started using https://nuke.build/. Early days so can’t comment too much but it seems good so far.

I think you're giving a really bad example of what consumers should expect from open-source projects. This year I reworked the whole website, released several versions, did a huge chunk of development, and spoke at 5 events (with travel). This is the first significant gap in almost 6 years of continuous development. Maybe it's hard to imagine, but also maintainers sometimes face severe issues in their life. Comments like this don't make it any better.

Posting this here because I think only .NET people use Nuke (https://nuke.build/) to manage their build.

The implementations and users page mentioned above:

https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark/blob/master/users.md

Starlark: Starlark is a language for describing build transformations, inspired by Python, but with features that make it suitable for embedding in software like Bazel. It can be used for configuration generation due to its capability for deterministic evaluation and expressing complex build transformations.

In the design of Starlark (https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark), I often had to push back against new feature requests to keep the language simple. I explicitly listed simplicity as a design goal.i

Of course, the scope of the language is not the same as general purpose languages, but there's always pressure from the users to add more things. I also think many people underestimate the cost of adding new features: it's not just about adding the code in every compiler/interpreter, specifying every edge-case in a spec, updating all the tooling for the language and writing tutorials; it's also a cost on everyone who will have to read any of the code.

one of the benefits of starlark (unlike python): "Starlark is suitable for use in highly parallel applications. An application may invoke the Starlark interpreter concurrently from many threads, without the possibility of a data race, because shared data structures become immutable due to freezing." from https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark/blob/master/spec.md - it's not python, you can't do recursion (!) and it's more limited (you can't read a file in bazel, and parse it, you have to make this operation into the graph somehow)

You can do the same in Bazel which uses Starlark for its BUILD files. Starlark is a dialect of Python so it makes it super easy to work with.

Make sense. We do not use Python actually, the build language is starlark, which is the config lang used by bazel. https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark

Have you seen Starlark? It's not too far from that, but safer in a number of ways: https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark