On Saturday 15 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007 1:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2007 12:41 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There are some vocal > > > complainers about the language, but I suspect there is a silent > > > majority that really don't care, > > > > CMake is a self-selecting community. Those that really care, leave. > > I'd like to know where they went, and what competing products they're > > working on. > > I've subscribed to the SCons mailing list. The SCons community has > people who got fed up with it and started their own R&D. It seems > that the SCons Python 1.5 limitation is a serious one, as developers > generally only know Python >= 2.2. Waf is the offering of a fellow > who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. > http://code.google.com/p/waf/
When KDE tried to switch to scons, many changes had to be made to scons, and this modified version is waf. > A recent comment of his, regarding KDE's use of CMake: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus >=15659 "* Cmake scripts are easily readable from IDEs (kdevelop); in reality > parsing-writing Cmake scripts Parsing/writing cmake scripts should not be done by IDEs, except for syntax highlighting and autocompletion. I don't see a problem there. ... > Most importantly: would my prejudices cause me to use, or even > develop, OO build tools that actually get real work done? Whether > coupled to an OO IDE or not. The proof is in the pudding. If there > are OO build systems that are having any success, we should pay > attention to why. We should be wary of generational biases of what a > build system "should" or "shouldn't" look like. Do we really know > better than everybody else? Does our extensive engineering experience > make us more efficient, productive, and competitive? Or does it > (also) make us blind to the technology around the corner? I've seen > new generations sweep old generations away. With the property stuff cmake is already becoming more OO. > As one young buck put it in that thread: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus >=15659 "I dunno the particular situation, but for me using CMake sounds like > they didn't make the step out of the last decade :-)" Feel free to write an ant or whatever generator for cmake :-) Alex P.S. if you would take 50% of the time you use to post here to write patches for cmake instead, much of what you would like to have could already be implemented _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
