Hi, Yes, when we had the CMake files, I used to generate an Xcode project to work on macOS. This was very good for work/debug.
> On 17 Jan 2019, at 03:21, Ben Coman via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> > wrote: > > > From: Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> > Subject: CMake > Date: 17 January 2019 at 03:21:18 CET > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>, Squeak Virtual > Machine Development Discussion <vm-...@lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 06:17, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com > <mailto:eliot.mira...@gmail.com>> wrote: > - About CMake, you may be right that makefile is better than CMake > but a part of the world is using > CMake and the net result is that we lost our effort and > infrastructure just to follow you. Ronie uses CMake. > Igor which I consider as a talented developer used CMake because he > thought it was the best tool > he should use. > > Yes, and I disagree about the way that they use it, and for good reason. I > have defended my use of Makefiles for a long time, for objective reasons. > > These reasons may be technically correct, but in terms of *community* > consider it similar to premature optimization. > For yourself, the priority is a faster build. Others may prioritize a faster > coding workflow using an IDE like Visual Studio. > Indeed, back when I trialed building minheadless on Windows a *primary* > consideration was that it looked easy to > use Visual Studio because minheadless had a CMake build. That led to me > contributing a couple of small fixes for win64, > but without the enticement of CMake I might never have opened that box. > > Consider then the possibility that a portion of our Windows using community > remains untapped > because their skill set is Visual Studio and they don't see an easy path to > using it with plain makefiles**. > So it depends on what is better for the *community* to optimize for: > * faster build-time for incumbents (important because thats where the > majority of contributions come from) > * broader community involvement with a workflow accelerating IDE (important > because growing the vm community is important, from which additional core > devs may arise) > > ** I do understand that plain makefiles can be used with VS, but I'm not > clear on the setup and > unsure if all the fancy intellisense tools work. > > I have also proposed good ways for using CMake (to derive a platform-specific > header file defining available platform-specific features). > > I presume its the additional multi-build-system features that people want > CMake for, not just the using it in name only. > I can't remember the trade-off between Automake-configure and > CMake-configure. Make using CMake-configure > would make it easier to co-ordinate parallel CMake and GnuMake systems. I > think I've noticed several large > code-bases providing both (but I'd have to check) > > > But my objection to Igor's process was that he generated sources on each > build. > > > And my objections to Ronie's use of CMake for the minheadless build are that > a) it is slow and > > I'd like to quantify that. > @esteban, I remember you converted minheadless from CMake to Gnumake, but I'm > not sure if I've got that right. > Can both be run off the current HEAD for minheadless? Or I could compare > HEAD with a previous commit that had CMake. I do not understand you question :) What is now in head should be the result of my(our, with Ronie) work. Esteban > > > b) explicit feature sets are much better than the implicit feature sets that > arise when using CMake. > > I'd like to understand this better. Could you expand? > > cheers -ben > >
