On Sunday 22 February 2009, Sergey Popov wrote: > На Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:52:55 +0100 > > Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org> wrote: > > Thanks for your contructive attitude. > > What is wrong with using a DSL for a very specific purpose ? > > I don't think that cmake's language is a DSL, at least compared to make. > It's just yet another scripting language, and time used for maintaining > it could be better spent elsewhere. > Besides, using an existing general purpose language would allow people > using the buildsystem to reuse their existing knowledge, not learn new > language constructs, but only new API.
Ok, this can be discussed without end. Just my opinion from maintaining the buildsystem for KDE, which builds millions of LOC in C++, including code generators and other stuff, developed by hundreds of developers, natively on Windows with MSVC, on Apple, and on Linux, Solaris, *BSD: It is a feature that cmake is no general purpose language. This discourages people from turning the build scripts into real programs. This can happen if you have full <chose_your_scripting_language> available, it's what I saw when we tried to use it in KDE and what I heard from others. Alex _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
