07.09.2016, 14:17, "BogDan Vatra" <bog...@kdab.com>: > On marți, 6 septembrie 2016 17:35:03 EEST Cristian Adam wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: >> > I guess somebody could even get CMake to write Qbs files, it would just be >> > one more generator. :-) >> >> This was done already >> <https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/commit/f85db2f32358e6de921aba7d1cb8e >> cb81da934c0>, but it was removed from CMake due to bad feedback from >> Qt Creator people. > > Ha ha ha! > The guy who implemented this didn't know that QBS is not better than cmake > when it comes to give proper information to IDE which is so needed to have > proper syntax highlighting and code completion. For those who don't know yet, > QBS *DOESN'T* provide the necessary info to the IDE: > - no compiler preprocessor defines: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QBS-903 > even is hallucinating this bug was closed as invalid :) there is a pending > patch https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/122000/ which might fix it but > we'll soon celebrate its 2nd anniversary in gerrit :) > - no system includes paths: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QBS-904 > - no c/cpp flags: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QBS-905 > > Having said that, why on earth to create such a generator when QBS support in > QtCreator is the same (or even worst) than cmake's one? > > DISCLAIMER: I was one of the biggest fans of this project, I had so much hopes > for it, but when you have high hopes you'll also have high disappoints :) . > I'll try to summarize my thought on QBS: > - it still has HUGE potential, it has a great easy to use & learn syntax > > -it has great features that you can't find in other build systems (e.g. it can > build multiple ABIs/platforms at once).
For the record, premake can do it as well. > > - personally I don't mind that it depends on Qt, what I do mind is that it > depends on dead Qt modules (e.g. QtScript, it has it's own (outdated?) QML > parser fork). Other cool build systems (e.g. gradle) download half of the > internet before they start, so, a build system that depends on a library like > Qt is not that bad. As I said it has huge potential and in the future Qt will > help to implement cool features like: automatically download/clone/checkout > 3rd partly libs, etc. > > - QBS was introduced to us as a build system designed with tooling in mind, > sadly that crucial aspect was forgotten (the above bugs prove what I'm > saying). > > - QBS developers don't use it in large projects with lots of dependencies, > with situations when you need to build & run tools to generate code, when you > need to build and/or run tools to check dependencies, when you need to test > compiler flags, etc. (apart from QtCreator which has just a few dependencies). > You might think that they started to use QBS to compile Qt to test all these > things, well, think again, that work was started by a brave contributor > (Andrew Knight) who is not a QBS developer! After the work was started, QBS > developers jumped in. > > - is QBS finished and ready to replace cmake/qmake/gradle/etc.? IMHO no! There > are not too many remaining features to implement, but if the development > continues at current speed I'm afraid we'll see people walking on Mars before > we'll see QBS finished... I hope that trying to build Qt with QBS will > motivate > QBS developers to implement these features faster. > > Cheers, > BogDan. > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development