Just from reading the title i figured their idea of 'modern' was using something like yaml or json.
I am guessing the primary selling point is that it's sort of human readable similar to Markdown but even that (in fact, especially that) falls short when a configuration is more than just 5 lines, in my opinion. Trying to figure out which bullet this sub-bullet belongs to by holding my finger on the screen while scrolling is not an improved experience. And don't even get me started on the clever type system.
I don't see this as any worse than figuring out where nested parentheses are closed: tooling helps. I'm almost certain there's a whitespace plugin equivalent of Rainbow Parentheses for your IDE/editor of choice
Well . . . the Perl folks, I think, came up with something less pointy than XML. And we all appreciated that because we'd all poked ourselves with XML too many times.
None of them are relevant, or made any case for using it instead of just using the thing described in an international standard that is shipped by default in UNIX and Unix-like OSes for decades.
It's like their selling point is to talk crap about other tools without making any case for their own offering.
Just because Windows decided to do everything differently to Unix and you decided to use Windows doesn't mean everything else has to adapt to be "cross platform".
FWIW, GNU Make runs fine in Windows if you're allergic to WSL
I fail to understand what point you tried to make. There are already plenty of Make implementations for Windows. If you think that installing a third party tool like Task is ok, I don't see how doing the same with a Make implementation would exclude it as a valid alternative.
I just pointed out there are Make implementations for Windows.
And I'm not even mentioning WSL or MinGW.
I don't know what else to say.
Ut is a solution for the vast majority of cases. Even most Windows environments use WSL.