alt.hn

8/3/2026 at 4:51:51 PM

Use Task Runners for Common Coding Tasks

 https://hamvocke.com/blog/task-runners/

by speckx

8/3/2026 at 11:38:21 PM

I like to use a handful of stable shell scripts as the entry points, this way you can change the tooling under the hood without having to update related callers. E.g. you can break up with make or mise or whatever, but you don't need to update your CI. Run.sh runs, build.sh builds, etc.

by chickensong

8/3/2026 at 8:38:08 PM

> A small drawback is that just isn’t readily available on developer’s machines (unlike bash and make)

Looking back, this was usually a substantial stumbling block for adoption of new tooling. Things have changed. All one has to do is look at what JS programmers will go through to scratch build entire toolchains on the back of npm. IMO, the bar has been moved up to allow _some_ installation friction rather than none.

IMO, if the tool is a solid improvement and installation is a one-liner, use it and promote it loudly so it continues to get support.

by pragma_x

8/3/2026 at 10:29:34 PM

Also had this issue. I have made a meta-task runner to make discovery and running of already defined make/just/task/npm/etc task targets easier called dela[0].

The ergonomics of running tasks are very similar to the article as you can run a task simply by typing the name of the task in your shell without saying "make" or "npm run" or whatever else that is the actual task runner. The difference is that you just have to install dela without having to change anything in the underlying project repository.

Works really well for me!

[0] https://github.com/aleyan/dela

by aleyan

8/3/2026 at 7:51:03 PM

Historically, I did it the other way around: have some autogenerated shell commands (dev, test, pull...etc) on my local machine that detect which language the project in the current folder is using, and calls commands accordingly. I did it this way because, in my case, it was challenging to consolidate multiple projects across multiple organizations under a single tool.

It's public, but I realize I haven't pushed my local updates for a while now. https://github.com/Betree/dev-commander

by betree

8/3/2026 at 11:28:34 PM

just use just!

It's really easy to learn - about an afternoon to peruse the docs. And quite capable.

by BeetleB

8/3/2026 at 10:30:54 PM

I write a Python script for this stuff. argparse with subparsers makes (fairly) light work of creating a command line tool with git-/svn-/etc.-style subcommands, and you get very useful autogenerated --help output. (The fact you have to statically specify your program's command line interface up front is maybe a bit un-pythonic, but it's all the better for it.)

Python is always measurably more lines than the Makefile or shell script equivalent, but just think of the effect on your productivity metrics!

The standard shutil and subprocess modules are pretty convenient to use as-is. They're a bit syntactically tedious for anything that's a very basic sequence of shell operations, but in exchange you'll never forget to quote the arguments correctly. And I've always found that these processes to tend to grow over time anyway - something that's much easier to handle in Python! There's also far more scope for additional error checking and nicer UX.

by tom_

8/3/2026 at 8:55:11 PM

I made a task runner inspired by make's simplicity but purpose-built for running tasks:

Run: Task runner that helps you easily manage and invoke small scripts and wrappers.

https://github.com/TekWizely/run

Do you find yourself using tools like make to manage non-build-related scripts?

Build tools are great, but they are not optimized for general script management.

Run aims to be better at managing small scripts and wrappers, while incorporating a familiar make-like syntax.

by TekWizely

8/3/2026 at 8:49:10 PM

Let me also recommend babashka and it's task runner too!

If my tasks are simple enough, bash or make will do but for serious projects, specially lispy ones, babashka is amazing.

by yolkedgeek

8/3/2026 at 8:43:57 PM

I use the shell script pattern. In bash the case statement at the bottom of your example can be replaced with this though:

  “${@:-default}” || usage

by danofsteel32

8/3/2026 at 6:58:24 PM

I've been using Taskfile. Are just / mise much better?

by jtwaleson

8/3/2026 at 11:16:19 PM

I have been using just for some projects and really like it. I looked at mise to replace direnv in the few places I use it, but between mise trying to do so many things and the in terminal advertisement for a problematic company I want nothing to do with, I have halted all plans I had for learning more about mise.

by Arrowmaster

8/3/2026 at 11:36:23 PM

What in terminal ads do you mean? I don’t recall ever seeing an ad of any kind in mise. Not saying you’re wrong, just that our experiences are different here.

by kstrauser

8/3/2026 at 8:02:39 PM

Taskfile is great but I’ve moved to mise over a year ago and not coming back.

The only think I found Taskfile does better is handling Go’s defer. Misé unfortunately does not have an equivalent.

Mise manages tools, env vars, tasks, bootstrapping , plays well with usage, etc.

People saying "just use makefiles" are missing out.

by LeBit

8/3/2026 at 9:57:29 PM

I was on the "just use makefiles" boat way too long, except it was Just at the time that was calling for my attention. At first glance, they look similar. Make's already there, so what's the big deal?

And then I use Just for a week and become a diehard fan. Yeah, it's similar to make, except optimized for developer ergonomics instead of feature completeness. What if... the tool actually supported and encouraged you instead of making you fight it?

Later I came to prefer mise over just. It does more common developer stuff like managing tools and env vars, and I prefer the way it handles embedded scripts. In any case, I vastly prefer either of them to make for the kinds of languages I mostly use.

Even if I did prefer make, which one? The GNU make that ships with macOS is ancient, so I'd probably have to install a newer one, and if I'm going to have to install a tool anyone, might as well make the effort to make that tool be mise (or just or just about anything else).

by kstrauser

8/3/2026 at 7:06:09 PM

Not using YAML is huge.

by timw4mail

8/3/2026 at 7:40:45 PM

I do this with plain ol' makefiles.

Even for projects where Make isn't part of the build pipeline, like Rails or C++, I have a standardized makefile I put in the project root, using includes for "secrets.mk", so I can do things like "make deploy" and it Just Works(tm).

Sometimes the old ways are best!

by stackghost

8/3/2026 at 7:53:38 PM

Another neat and simple trick it to have the first target in the Makefile print out a helpful message that tells the reader what the project is and how to use it. One of those things that is useful both when you are working on the project and when you later return to it, years later.

by adunk

8/3/2026 at 8:10:54 PM

That's definitely an option, though I prefer to just put a README. No reason you couldn't have the default make target just execute `cat README.md`

by stackghost

8/3/2026 at 6:52:46 PM

I wish mise has better secrets management or allows for split config e.g. a repo wide config that's to be shared and a personal config that can override whatever's necessary. It's difficult to commit mise.toml because the [env] section almost always contains sensitive variables.

by Onavo

8/3/2026 at 7:01:26 PM

mise looks in a number of places for configuration and recommends using a `mise.local.toml` file for local-only configurations:

https://mise.jdx.dev/configuration.html

the same author has a separate but related project called fnox which focuses on secrets management and integrates with mise:

https://fnox.jdx.dev/

by coryplastek

8/3/2026 at 8:48:31 PM

I recommend mise for almost everything.

But we use 1Password for secrets and I have the need to mix and match environment profiles. So I built:

https://github.com/level12/env-config

by rsyring

8/3/2026 at 8:36:40 PM

Like someone said, there is fnox by the same author for secrets.

Whatever is truly local (not necessarily secrets ) should go in mise.local.toml and not be version controlled.

You also have MISE_ENV if you want to manage completely different environments.

by LeBit