I've looked into pydoit multiple times and I would love to try it. There are a few reasons that make me go back to make (no pun intended!).
* It comes pre-installed on most UNIX operating systems. Yes, macOS ships an older version, but it works in most cases. This makes bootstrapping projects easier.
* I like how simple it's to get started with a Makefile when you just need a few tasks. Although I admit, big Makefiles can become hard to maintain.
I've recently experimented with using Makefiles as an ETL orchestrator, and it's becoming quite messy. I believe pydoit is the perfect replacement candidate. I just haven't had time to try it.
Edit:
Another thing I like about Makefiles is that you can keep the "hackiness" of shell scripts, manipulate the environment [0], etc. I guess you can do the same with other tools, but I find it easier to reason about those useful "hacks" in Makefiles.
> doit core features are quite stable. If there is no recent development, it does NOT mean the project is not being maintained... The project has 100% unit-test code coverage.
Okay, but support stops at Python 3.10. I have nothing against the tool - it looks interesting. But isn’t support of current versions of Python table stakes for a tool like this? How am I, as a potential user of this tool, supposed to interpret the lack of 3.11 support and a last release dated end of last year?
After the chaos of Python 2to3, backwards Python's backwards compatibility has been amazing. The tool is created for developers and claims 100% code coverage. Determining if it works with any specific version of Python would be a trivial exercise of clone the repo, make an venv, and run the tests.
This is something that a dev should do when evaluating a new dependency even when it claims to support the version relevant to you. Sadly, many do not.
