I had no business writing a build system from scratch. Tools like Make, Bazel, and Ninja exist for a reason: they're battle-tested, endlessly optimized, and built by people way smarter than me. But I wanted to learn. And nothing teaches you the guts of software engineering like falling flat on your face, repeatedly, with bugs that make you question your sanity.

Here's the mess I uncovered while trying to make my own Python build system.

Dependency Hell: My First Mistake

At the core of any build system is a dependency graph. I thought I could hack one together with a dictionary mapping tasks to prerequisites. Easy, right?

graph = {
    "compile": ["clean"],
    "link": ["compile"],
    "package": ["link"]
}

Until I tried circular dependencies:

graph = {
    "A": ["B"],
    "B": ["A"]
}

My "simple" DFS went into infinite recursion. That's when I realized: even something as basic as dependency resolution requires cycle detection, topological sorting, and careful edge-case handling.

File Timestamps: The Trap I Fell Into

My first instinct was to rebuild targets only if the source file was newer than the output.

import os
def needs_rebuild(src, target):
    return os.path.getmtime(src) > os.path.getmtime(target)

But then I hit problems:

• Clocks weren't always in sync on different machines.
• Some compilers updated timestamps even if the content hadn't changed.
• Cached files tricked my logic into unnecessary rebuilds.

I learned that serious build systems often use content hashing instead of timestamps. Which meant rethinking my entire design.

Parallelism: Bugs That Lurked in Race Conditions

I wanted speed, so I added multiprocessing. My naive implementation spawned workers without thinking about shared resources.

from multiprocessing import Pool
def build_task(task):
    print(f"Building {task}")
    # ... do work
with Pool(4) as pool:
    pool.map(build_task, graph.keys())

Of course, two tasks writing to the same output stomped over each other. Logs interleaved into unreadable garbage. Race conditions turned my "build" into "random explosions." Lesson: parallelism isn't free; it's a minefield.

Error Handling: The Forgotten Step

The first time a compiler error happened, my build system just kept going. I had to explicitly propagate errors and fail the entire build.

def build_task(task):
    try:
        # do work
        return True
    except Exception as e:
        print(f"Error in {task}: {e}")
        return False

Even then, parallel workers didn't always cleanly exit. Some hung, others left zombie processes. I realized good build systems don't just stop on errors — they report them gracefully and clean up after themselves.

The Cache I Couldn't Get Right

I wanted to avoid rebuilding unchanged targets. My first attempt was a JSON cache.

import json
cache_file = "build_cache.json"
def load_cache():
    if os.path.exists(cache_file):
        return json.load(open(cache_file))
    return {}
def save_cache(data):
    json.dump(data, open(cache_file, "w"))

But what if the compiler flags changed? Or an environment variable? Suddenly my cache was stale, producing binaries that didn't match the intended configuration. Professional tools solve this by hashing not just inputs, but also compiler flags, environment, and even tool versions. My "tiny cache" wasn't even close.

Cross-Platform Pain

On Linux, everything worked fine. On Windows, paths with backslashes broke my graph traversal.

# Worked on Linux
src = "src/main.c"
# Broke on Windows
src = "src\\main.c"

I spent hours fixing what felt like trivial bugs. Proper path normalization with os.path or pathlib became mandatory. Another reminder: build systems are really about the unglamorous details.

Debugging My Own Debugging Tools

To track what was happening, I built a logging system. But soon the logs themselves became unreadable, hundreds of lines interleaved across processes.

I added colors, timestamps, and task IDs:

import logging
logging.basicConfig(
    format="%(asctime)s [%(levelname)s] (%(processName)s) %(message)s",
    level=logging.INFO
)

Now I had insight, but I also realized why real build systems invest in structured logging and visualization. My plain-text logs felt like looking at a battlefield with a flashlight.

Where I Finally Drew the Line

After weeks of bugs, patches, and fragile fixes, I admitted it: I had built a toy. A functional one, but nowhere near the reliability of Make or Bazel. And that was okay. The bugs taught me more than success ever could.

Closing Reflection: The Real Build Was in My Head

Building a Python build system from scratch wasn't about replacing existing tools. It was about learning why those tools exist in the first place. Every bug I hit — circular dependencies, flaky caches, race conditions, cross-platform issues — mirrored real-world complexity that experts have been solving for decades.

The biggest lesson? Reinventing the wheel isn't always about the wheel. Sometimes it's about discovering why it's round in the first place.

If you enjoyed reading, be sure to give it 50 CLAPS! Follow and don't miss out on any of my future posts — subscribe to my profile for must-read blog updates!

Thanks for reading!

A message from our Founder

Hey, Sunil here. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for reading until the end and for being a part of this community.

Did you know that our team run these publications as a volunteer effort to over 3.5m monthly readers? We don't receive any funding, we do this to support the community. ❤️

If you want to show some love, please take a moment to follow me on LinkedIn, TikTok, Instagram. You can also subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

And before you go, don't forget to clap and follow the writer️!