Subject: Re: [boost] [ot] choosing a build system
From: Sergey Popov (loonycyborg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-12 04:17:45
On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:56:47 -0600
Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think you're not giving CMake enough credit. It has been evolving
> quite quickly over the past few years. Its programming language may
> be old and crusty, but it's expressive enough to get the job done.
> Most importantly, it hits a "sweet spot" between abstract and direct
> that makes it practical and accessible.
The language isn't the only problem. Remember Makefile generation? It
absolutely isn't justified. Autotools uses this approach only to
achieve the cool trick of allowing you to make distribution packages
that don't require anything other than standard unix utils to be built.
It's just easier to make an unitary build tool than mess around with
makefile generation and suffer all limitations of this approach.
What's so hard about implementing topological sort, anyway? Make isn't
All in all, the fact that build tools with such ancient design are still
seriously developed is disheartening. Pretty much shows that people
don't care much about buildsystems.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk