Make excels at what it's design to do: specify a configurable DAG of tasks that generate artifacts, execute them, and automatically determine which subgraph requires updates and which can be skipped by reusing their artifacts.
I wonder: which tool do you believe does this better than Make?
But the Internet’s make mind-share means you still have to know make.
Edit: and make lets you use make to essentially run scripts/utils. People love to abuse make for that. Can’t do that with tup.
Sufficiently complex project need to invole alot of wierd extra scripts, and if a build system cannot fulfil it... the n it needs to be wrapped in a complex bash script anyway.
I don't think Tup managed to present any case. Glancing at the page, the only conceivable synthetic scenarios where they can present Tup in a positive light is built times of > 10k files, and only in a synthetic scenario involving recompiling partially built projects. And what's the upside of those synthetic scenarios? Shaving w couple of seconds in rebuilds? That's hardly a compelling scenario.
`tup` relies on a stateful database, which makes it incomparable to `make`.