title: Reason for Make's Popularity vs. Alternatives
body: <p>What forces are at work keeping crufty old Make (with or without makefile generator tools) prominent as a build tool?   Is it deficiencies in alternatives that keep them from being widely adopted, or insufficient publicity, or does something about Make keep it in place?</p>
  
  <p>Despite Make's many weaknesses and difficulties dealing with large projects
  (e.g. see <a href="http://freshmeat.net/articles/what-is-wrong-with-make" rel="noreferrer">http://freshmeat.net/articles/what-is-wrong-with-make</a>) it appears to still be more widely  used than newer, improved alternatives such as <a href="http://www.scons.org/" rel="noreferrer">Scons</a>, <a href="http://www.perforce.com/jam/jam.html" rel="noreferrer">Jam</a>, <a href="http://rake.rubyforge.org/" rel="noreferrer">Rake</a>, <a href="http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/software/cook/" rel="noreferrer">Cook</a>, and others.  </p>
  
  <p>Are there measurable benefits to the alternatives, or are the "market shares" due mostly to opinion and experience of team leaders?</p>