Jussi Pakkanen wrote: > > I think it's cleaner, and there's definitely not much (should I say > > any?) redundancy left. Additionally, one can enhance the script to > > generate makefiles for pretty much every make tool of this world, > > including eclipse/netbeans/visual studio project files. > > I would like to point out that what you are doing is generating your > own language and a build tool/generator based on that. > Yes. I'm piggy-backing on Björn's own rewrite, adding the (IMHO) crucial features that a new build system *should* have, once we're going for this endeavour.
> There's nothing wrong with it as such, but this is reinventing the > wheel again (just like Google's GYP). Instead of custom dmake/ > build.pl you would have custom gnumakegen/gnumake_or_something. > What is the benefit you get from this instead of using something > like CMake that already has a mature implementation of this > functionality? Even if CMake eventually turns out to be too slow, > would it not make more sense to write your own custom CMake back > end rather than the configuration/generation front end? > I guess it's now my turn to ask for sample code here. ;) I've no strong opinion on cmake, except for the fact that it sucks at cross-building; the input syntax is ~ok, though not really good on enforcing structure; no idea how much effort there is writing a custom backend vs. having a dedicated approach in the first place (i.e. how much code could we share, e.g. from the eclipse/visual studio output targets in cmake, vs. having it all custom anyways?) > For further information here is a Google Tech Talk about CMake and all > related things (testing, code coverity, packaging, etc, etc) by one of > the creators. If the build tool decision is not yet final, it is worth > watching. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ut9o4OdSC0 > Mostly marketing. I'm not too interested who else is using it, whether it has reached a tipping point etc. etc., but rather how an actual cmake solution to the requirements mentioned before may look like (scaffolding, drafting, etc. totally acceptable - just need the gist of it). :) Cheers, -- Thorsten
pgpBJfu60iKAW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
