The only feature that vanilla Make doesn’t have over this is solid Windows support.
I’ve evaluated a ton of these tools for CI/CD processes and common task management. So far I have found that Make is the best solution for task management unless you need strong Windows support. If you want to go crazy, you can use Autotools but that’s really only for builds not tasks. I get it; it’s cool to reinvent the wheel with a new feature that makes one thing a little bit easier.
I mean, I doubt the Windows support is particularly solid here either. Using shell commands to formulate tasks will never be great for Windows, because the shell ecosystem is simply Linux.
Seriously, though; there are a dozen widely used make systems, most of which are more widely used than just. People have ideas and think they can improve. As far as it goes, having a bunch of different make options is one of the least annoying areas; diversity is mostly hidden from end users, and you only really have to learn it if you plan on becoming a contributor.
However, if you're asking for a comparison table, a "why is this better than make, or ant, or maven, or cmake, or ninja, or just, or rake," then yeah, I agree. Having a brief elevator pitch is appreciated.
