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 17:58:38

On 6/22/2017 1:18 PM, paul via Boost wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 17:35 +0100, 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 ;-)
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> 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?"
>>
>> should I invest in
>>
>> Mastering CMake Paperback - January 16, 2015 by Ken Martin (Author), Bill
>> Hoffman (Author) $50
> 
> There is this:
> 
> https://cmake.org/cmake-tutorial/

I am one of those people who find tutorials a completely hopeless way 
for me to understand any piece of software. I will buy some book 
instead, but I really want CMake to actually provide documentation which 
gives me a thorough overview of how CMake works and explains the 
parts/concepts of CMake as part of this overview. The style of 
documentation which so many people employ and so many people seem to 
love, a tutorial and then a mass of largely undifferentiated detail, 
makes me nauseous.