> It's a big glob of homegrown thoughts and ideas. Some of them are really slick, like build deduplication. Others are clever and hard to reason about, or in the worst case, terrifying to touch.
This is true of packaging and build systems in general. They are often the passion projects of one or a handful of people in an organization - by the time they have active outside development, those idiosyncratic concepts are already ossified.
It's really rare to see these sorts of projects decomposed into building blocks even just having code organization that helps a newcomer understand. Despite all the code being out in public, all the important reasoning about why certain things are the way they are is trapped inside a few dev's heads.
As someone who has worked in the space for a while and been heavily exposed to nix, bazel, cmake, bake, and other systems, and also been in that "passion project" role, I think what I've found is that these kinds of systems are just plain hard to talk about. Even the common elements like DAGs cause most people's eyes to immediately glaze over.
Managers and executives are happy to hear that you made the builds faster or more reliable, so the infra people who care about this kind of thing don't waste time on design docs and instead focus on getting to a minimum prototype that demonstrates those improved metrics. Once you have that, then there's buy-in and the project is made official... but by then the bones have already been set in place, so design documentation ends up focused on the more visible stuff like user interface, storage formats, etc.
OTOH, bazel (as blaze) was a very intentionally designed second system at Google, and buildx/buildkit is similarly a rewrite of the container builder for Docker, so both of them should have been pretty free of accidental engineering in their early phases.
I don't think you can ever get away from accidental engineering in build systems because as soon as they find their niche something new comes along to disrupt it. Even with something homegrown out of shell scripts and directory trees the boss will eventually ask you to do something that doesn't fit well with your existing concepts.
A build system is meant to yield artifacts, run tools, parallelize things, calculate dependencies, download packages, and more. And these are all things that have some algorithmic similarity which is a kind of superficial similarity in that the failure modes and the exact systems involved are often dramatically different. I don't know that you can build something that is that all-encompassing without compromising somewhere.
> This is true of packaging and build systems in general. They are often the passion projects of one or a handful of people in an organization
This is a very insightful comment