OK, that's just not true. For starters, which make? GNU and BSD are common variants, and aren't 100% compatible. The overlap is large and useful, but does mean that you have to be aware of it if you're using multiple systems.
For my uses, make offers nothing of value over just. I don't need any of the clever build dependency resolution stuff when I'm working in Python, and cargo handles everything better when I'm using Rust. Which isn't to say that make isn't enormously powerful and useful for other people, only that its extra power causes more work than reward for the ways I personally want to use it. For me, just is everything about make that I actually use, minus all the complicating features that get in my way.
If you really feel that way then you will have to ask the OpenGroup people to fix the UNIX Shell and Utilities part, because they seem to have included a specification of make.
> GNU and BSD are common variants, and aren't 100% compatible.
Irrelevant. UNIX specifies an interface. It matters nothing if some implementation added their extensions.
> For my uses, make offers nothing of value (...)
That's perfectly fine. Just install just in your machines and work on your personal projects as you see fit.
If on the other hand you intend to distribute something you work on, using make ensures that those using specific target platforms don't need to install extra software because it already ships preinstalled.
For my uses, make offers nothing of value over just. I don't need any of the clever build dependency resolution stuff when I'm working in Python, and cargo handles everything better when I'm using Rust. Which isn't to say that make isn't enormously powerful and useful for other people, only that its extra power causes more work than reward for the ways I personally want to use it. For me, just is everything about make that I actually use, minus all the complicating features that get in my way.