Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-22 16:59:56

On 6/22/2017 12:35 PM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
>> Sent: 22 June 2017 17:05
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Cc: Edward Diener
>> Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
>>
>> On 6/22/2017 7:06 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
>>>> Sent: 21 June 2017 16:23
>>>> To: Chris Glover via Boost
>>>> Cc: Robert Ramey
>>>> Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
> <snip>
> 
>>> So personally, I am now fairly happy using bjam/b2, after years of swearing and gnashing of teeth.
>>> Compared to the creators, I'm oligoneuronic
>>
>> No definition in my "Webster's Third New International Dictionary", I
>> don't have the OED, don't recall the word in literature, find only
>> 'Oligoneuron' on the web about a genus of flowering plants, so a
>> definition would be appreciated as my own neurons are not firing enough
>> connections to understand it. Perhaps it means an oligarchy of neurons,
>> whatever that is supposed to be.
> 
> OK - I confess - made that up ;-)

I suspected that <g>.

> 
> oligo - few
> 
> neuronic - neurons
> 
> (with the benefit of dimly remembered Latin - I was extruded forcibly though O level by my Mother who had a Classics degree -
> oligarchy - rule by a few people, and chemistry - oligomers - polymers with a few mers)

Well 'oligo' is Greek, not that I know Greek. I did take Latin also in 
an American prep school, but I do not remember very much any more. A 
prep school in the US is a private school, since in Britain I believe 
the terminology is different.

> 
> But it seems a useful term of (self-)abuse?
> 
>> What I am really afraid of is not that Boost end-users do not like
>> CMake, because obviously most programmers appear to love it, but that
>> Boost will just be substituting one build system under its own control,
>> which few really understand, for another build system controlled
>> elsewhere, which more evidently understand but whose usage even more
>> people disagree about.
> 
> +1
>   
>> However if we can provide CMake for end-users from our bjam files,
>> without tortuous work, I am all for it as long as I personally don't
>> have to understand it. I find reading the CMake docs, such as they are,
>> much more incomprehensible than the Boost Build docs.
> 
> What should I be reading?
> 
> https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.9/ dumps me in at the deep end and leaves me at "Huh?"

I have the exact same reaction.

> 
> should I invest in
> 
> Mastering CMake Paperback - January 16, 2015 by Ken Martin (Author), Bill Hoffman (Author) $50
> 
> Paul
> 
> ---
> Paul A. Bristow
> Prizet Farmhouse
> Kendal UK LA8 8AB
> [phone]