shake VS tup

Another interesting implementation is Shake: https://shakebuild.com/

It is technically a Haskell DSL, but supports Ninja files, time estimates and has tools for linting and profiling.

They explicitly refer to Shake build system and Build Systems a la Carte paper.

The one paper that gave me hope about build systems was Build systems à la carte: Theory and practice, by Andrey Mokhov, Neil Mitchell, and Simon Peyton Jones. Among other things, it describes the theoretical underpinnings of the Shake build system. To be honest I believe any build system that ignores the maths described in this paper can safely be ignored. (You may however ignore the paper itself if the maths checks out. See Daniel J. Bernstein's redo, which matches Shake very closely.)

Yeah, they don't have to be terrible. I haven't used it, but people in my circles tend to really like Shake, which uses a Haskell embedded DSL to describe builds.

You could try Shake. It's a sane build system written by a former co-worker of mine. https://shakebuild.com/

Shake does require compilation as it's essentially just a Haskell library providing a DSL and it works just fine, I guess in gradle's case it's a thing about Java-typical overengineering and complete blindness to resource usage. Shake's underlying engine can actually go head-to-head with ninja itself when building ninja files.

Did you look at shake: https://shakebuild.com/ ?

For reasons I don't want to get into, I am building my own GHC package without cabal. The documentation is a little sketchy, but I've succeeded in build and installing it in my own user database (I'm on linux x86_64, using GHC 8.6.5). I am using shake to do all of this, and I've been pretty pleased with how it works.

Whenever looking at one these, I think back to the obscure but interesting "tup":

“How is it so awesome? In a typical build system, the dependency arrows go down. Although this is the way they would naturally go due to gravity, it is unfortunately also where the enemy's gate is. This makes it very inefficient and unfriendly. In tup, the arrows go up.”

https://gittup.org/tup/

Once upon a time, you could roll your own of this using `tup` which might have my favorite "how it works" in the readme:

How is it so awesome?

In a typical build system, the dependency arrows go down. Although this is the way they would naturally go due to gravity, it is unfortunately also where the enemy's gate is. This makes it very inefficient and unfriendly. In tup, the arrows go up. This is obviously true because it rhymes. See how the dependencies differ in make and tup:

[ Make vs. Tup ]

See the difference? The arrows go up. This makes it very fast.

https://gittup.org/tup/

Also has a whitepaper: https://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf

Ten years ago, I used reStructuredText and its support for LaTeX math and syntax highlighting. I used tup (tup monitor -a -f) to take care of running rst2html on save.

I might be showing my ignorance here, but this just sounds like Tup? https://gittup.org/tup/

I agree. While I like the idea of tup (https://gittup.org/tup/ -- the first "forward" build system I remember hearing of), writing a makefile is easy enough that thinking about the problem upside-down doesn't offer a compelling reason to switch.

Ptrace is one option for tracing dependencies, but it comes with a performance hit. A low-level alternative would be ftrace (https://lwn.net/Articles/608497/) or dtrace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace).

Tup uses LD_PRELOAD (or equivalent) to intercept calls to C file i/o functions. On OSX it looks DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES would be the equivalent.

* order-only prerequisites - X must happen before Y if it's happening but a change in X doesn't trigger Y

This is just a small selection and there are missing things (like how to handle rules that affect multiple targets).

It's all horrible and complex because like a lot of languages there's a manual listing the features but not much in the way of motivations for how or why you'd use them so you have to find that out by painful experience.

It's also very difficult to address the warts and problems in (GNU) make because it's so critical to the build systems of so many packages that any breaking change could end up being a disaster for 1000s of packages used in your favorite linux distribution or even bits of Android and so on.

So it's in a very constrained situation BECAUSE of it's "popularity".

Make is also not a good way to logically describe your build/work - something like Meson would be better - where you can describe on the one hand what a "program" model was as a kind of class or interface and on the other an implementation of the many nasty operating system specific details of how to build an item of that class or type.

Make has so many complex possible ways of operating (sometimes not all needed) that it can be hard to think about.

The things that Make can do end up slowing it down as a parser such that for large builds the time to parse the makefile becomes significant.

Make uses a dependency tree - when builds get large one starts to want an Inverted Dependency Tree. i.e. instead of working out what the aim of the build is and therefore what subcomponents need to be checked for changes we start with what changed and that gives us a list of actions that have to be taken. This sidesteps parsing of a huge makefile with a lot of build information in it that is mostly not relevant at all to the things that have changed. TUP is the first tool I know about that used this approach and having been burned hard by make and ninja when it comes to parsing huge makefiles (ninja is better but still slow) I think TUP's answer is the best https://gittup.org/tup/

You might enjoy Tup[1] if you've not checked it out before.

[1]: https://gittup.org/tup/