On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon wrote: > > > > I am starting to wonder if the whole Lua thing is indeed a red > > herring, and what CMake really needs is the best possible website to > > document, tutorialize, and market CMake. In other words, what we've > > got is fine; go sell it. > > > I have the feelling that I'd like to get into *this* discussion (not that > SCon's related one), but I'm a newcomer much too late to the party, so: > what's "the whole Lua thing" in a nutshell?
Nutshell: is it strategically a good idea to implement Lua support for CMake? In my opinion: Pros: - higher quality 3rd party documentation that the CMake community needn't maintain. - CMake gets a popularity boost from Lua, as it's a mainstream accepted language. - Lua's corner cases are more ironed out than CMake script. 3rd party continues to iron them out. - proof of concept has already been demonstrated and was relatively easy to implement Cons: - although doable, it's extra work to support 2 languages - without a comprehensive migration strategy, it would split the CMake community - CMake script must be maintained indefinitely for a small percentage of users no matter what the migration strategy - too much programmability may cause people to treat CMake as more of a library or build component, rather than a standard end user tool Undecided: - Do advanced programming constructs really matter? OO? A fool's game / fad / waste of time? Or is it a killer feature that will make or break products in the future? > If it has something to do with the CMake scripting language, well, I for one > would love to drop it and use something else, like.... (don't get me started > on the wrong tail) The archives contain abundant ink on this subject. Well, bytes, whatever. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake