Subject: Re: [boost] CMake - one more time
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-24 13:07:23
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey
> Sent: 23 April 2016 19:10
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] CMake - one more time
> > The idea is that the user would set this(not the library author), so it shouldnât be set in a CMakeLists.txt file.
> This statement is not about the particular CMake variable. It's about
> the fact that the "language" has many, many builtin ambiguities which
> make it impossible to know or agree on how to use it.
> > Yes, but cmake has a much larger community that after a little googling I can find a solution to the problem due to the
> fact that there is a wealth of examples and tutorials out there.
Yes - and you can find a whole pile of b2/bjam queries and replies on lots of sites too.
And very many of them are quite basic questions that should not need to be asked on the helpful sites.
> Ahhh yes. That's the real problem. What you characterize as a
> solution/feather, I characterize as a symptom of fundamental fault. Do
> have have to troll the whole net to differentiate a function? Of course
> not. That fact that this is now an acceptable answer is testament to
> the sad state of modern software development!
(And sadly I must also include C/C++ in this - the world's greatest software disaster, but let's not digress...)
> >> And the documentation actually makes it worse because it suggests that the system is simple to use when it's actually
> not. It makes naive users feel like they're stupid - whether they are or not.
At least I know I'm stupid - but I still want to get things to work.
> >> And this is made worse by the fact that there are lots of people who have made simple build scripts for small projects
> with limited requirements. This work the first time - now they think it IS easy and they think there's nothing to it. It's
> > I donât know what you are referring to here.
Many of the answers on the helpful sites.
> LOL - I'm referring to discussions such as this one. The fact that
> everytime a question is raised, someone has an answer for some specific
> scenario. This is deemed to be support that the system is a good one.
> This the exact wrong conclusion! It seems that it never occurs to anyone
> that the fact that such a question has to be ask in the first place is
> an indicator that something is fundamentally wrong with the concept
> and/or implementation.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk