Not sure but my guess is because they aren't a good fit for many languages. If you need a task runner then often languages will have a built in option or there are better alternatives than Make. If you need a build system then Make isn't a good fit for a lot of modern languages.
I’ve been using earthly a lot lately and its general value prop is simple: it turns out that if Buildkit is your primary build tool that Make targets can almost always be represented as OCI image layers. The killer feature IMO is that its syntax is familiar enough to end users of both Make and Dockerfiles that engineers tend to be willing to onboard to it. A lot of these other solutions that use proprietary DSL’s struggle to cover every use case, and the implementations in turing complete typical language SDK approach often forces you into analysis paralysis if there is no existing pattern.
My struggle with Make and bash is that they're not very expressive - maybe that's something we want in our CIs, but I've always preferred writing an actual program in that program's native language for CI/CD, even if it has to shell out some commands every now and again.
If you stick with what is in common between ninja build and Makefiles, and comment any usage you do of what isn't, the file will mostly mention a series of inputs -> box -> outputs. What happens is make will dispatch in a way that the inputs are all satisfied. It works fine afaict, the only issue is make doesn't contain by itself the tools that it expects to be available in your environment, so you will still need something else to solve that.
You want to use GNU Make, and then you can ignore the Make dependency tracking. GNU Make is much easier when you only use so-called phony targets (consult the manual), which always execute without doing any dependency tracking.
As for the advantage, a makefile will definitely perform both go build and docker push, rather than just (say) docker push, an ever-present risk if you have to rely on your fingers to type these things in, or rely on your eyes to check that you recalled the right command from the history. It will also explicitly tell you the build failed rather than relying on you to do echo $? or for the tools to have some obvious output in the error case.
A shell script is also an option. Makefiles have some helpful extra features: by default, commands are echoed; by default, the build fails if any command exits with a non-0 exit code (please consult local Unix person for the details); a Makefile inherently has multiple entry points; and, a Makefile can also be easier to get working on Windows than a shell script, though if you can demand that people run it from Git Bash then maybe there's not much in this.
If you're still not convinced: that's fine! This is not a sales pitch.
(I've more recently switching to using a do-everything Python script for this stuff, which is more annoying when it comes to invoking commands but has obvious advantages in terms of how easy it is to add extra logic and checks and some UI creature comforts and so on.)
Maybe none, but at some point you may want to do other things at buildtime, such as generating an sqlite db or generate code stubs for protobuf. Having a universal, and highly refined, tool like Make will help developers without domain knowledge. It also does not exclude the use of other tool like Just and Docker. A Makefile is also an easy jump-off point for a build pipeline.
Then introduce it for those things. But a makefile to call go build, go test, docker push, Ecs update-services provides no value other than all of a sudden not working on windows without another tool.
At that point you end up with a makefile that has a 1:1 mapping with targets in my experience.
At a previous job, we had an enormous makefile, most of which was defining phone targets and translating make arguments into maven arguments. All the actual targets were calling maven. Make provided no value at all in that, other than requiring you to know
Make and maven to modify anything in the build.
Personally I’d rather a shell script for a command runner in most cases
If you have a telltale prefix for any internal phony targets (I use "_"), then you can have the Makefile list all the interesting targets itself. Cat the Makefile, print every line matching "^\.PHONY:[[:space:]]*[^_]", then strip out the prefix. Leave any suffix, as you can put a trailing comment in, e.g.,
.PHONY:build_windows # build for Windows. Supply DEBUG=1 for a debug build
I find this super useful. Even if you remember exactly what the target was called, it still gives you a nice list of words you can double click on to pull into the command line.
The `just` tool is a better and much easier to understand command runner than `make`, however. Much less feature surface, too, which eliminates nasty surprises coming from the unnecessary complexity of `make`.
`just` is 90% similar to `make` in syntax, only it has 100x less foot guns. :)
Also I'll never understand the appeal of "not having to install a tool". We're not in the 1980s anymore when that was an actual chore. You run a command, the tool is there (including in CI/CD), boom, done. What am I missing here?
Bootstrapping can be painful in some languages or frameworks. Not everyone is running containerised builds where there are ephemeral environments that you just install a tool (and pay the 30+ second cost per build to run apt-get update). There’s certainly value in having a front door entry point. But I think it should be a shell script, not a makefile.
Yes to your last. Either sh/bash script or a precompiled Golang program. If installing a tool is really such a problem then having a precompiled strongly typed program doing various tasks should be a no-brainer.
I started openly hating `make` because I re-learned its specifics and quirks several times over the course of 10-ish years and then figured that I want to learn stuff with a staying power in my brain. I don't use `make` every work day so eventually any quirks disappear -- that's how our brains work.
So that's why I learned most of `just` and it hasn't betrayed me so far, not once. Though I did write a few Elixir and Golang programs for running various tasks in production environment, too.
I touched make once in 1999, in school. The syntax was arcane, even by 1999 standards.
> Why have they gone out of style?
Because no modern toolchain uses make. Its syntax is so arcane that it's been replaced with various tools that are designed for the specific stack. Otherwise, more generic build systems use modern languages / markup.
