> Yeah, though it is not that horrible since tup allows you to over-specify dependencies with very minor ill-effects (less parallelism, but no over-building).
Make has exactly the same behavior with respect to additional dependencies.
> All in all, these short-comings are very minor compared to Make's huge ones
> Make has exactly the same behavior with respect to additional dependencies
No it doesn't. If I overspecify that foo.o depends on foo.h, and I change foo.h, Make will rebuild foo.o even if it doesn't actually depend on foo.h. Tup won't.
> Like what?
Like incorrect builds, not supporting auto-generated code with dependency scanning, not scaling to large projects (slow builds, as demo'd by the benchmark page), lack of any kind of reports about the build, no guarantees at all about any output, and more.
Make has exactly the same behavior with respect to additional dependencies.
> All in all, these short-comings are very minor compared to Make's huge ones
Like what?