On Dec 14, 2007 3:27 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is clear that > CMake won't support Lua (and it's right to do so, because of backwards > compatibility), so a fork is the only viable option.
I'm not willing to concede the clarity. As I just wrote, "backwards compatibility" is an issue to solve, not a dealbreaker. As for labor, there's already a quorum of people interested in the issue, and CMake forks have been threatened before. I'd like to see people identify actual strategic needs - things that matter for the next 5..10 years. I'd like to see people consider the validity of numerous complaints about the CMake language, before shutting down conversation about it. I'd like to see people try the CMake scoping and function improvements that were recently made in CVS. I'd like to see people examine other build systems and return with tangibles, i.e. "this is clearly better" rather than "I think it would be better." I agree that Kitware hasn't been persuaded of the value of using a 3rd party open source language. But why should we stop investigating at their say-so? Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake