On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:41 PM Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenha...@qt.io> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:17:04PM +0000, Lars Knoll wrote: > > and investment in promoting it towards the larger C++ ecosystem as a > > new build tool. > > > nonsense. > all the promotion qbs would need is being used to build qt. > Context: I don't really have a stake in this argument - I'm a qmake user that doesn't *much* care about the build system, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. For me cmake is good because many projects are already using it, meaning that there's not a new technology to learn for many developers. Also it's powerful, even to the point of being dangerous (I've seen quite the abominations). On the minus side - it's rather complicated and the syntax is abysmal. Argument: >From my point of view qbs is doomed as long as qmake's alive. Either kill qmake and force the developers using Qt (or developing Qt) to use qbs, with all its quirks, or live with the fact that people don't want to spend the time learning a new technology if they don't have to. That's leaving the pure enthusiasm about something cool aside. Not forcing the issue, in my opinion, is the reason for the inevitable demise of qbs. And that's exactly in line with the situation about makefiles: everybody's still using them underneath the build tools, and pretty much everybody is hating them, but at the end of day they work and there's little incentive to switch; known is *safe* but ultimately hinders change.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
