Re: [Boost-build] Future development

From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-05 21:05:26

On 10/05/07 18:15, Ray Lambert wrote:
 > David Abrahams wrote:
 >>>> The task of representing low-level instruction streams.  Some
 >>>> assemblers have sprouted sophisticated macro systems and other
 >>>> high-level constructs (sort of like some makes have sprouted
 >>>> complicated features), but somehow compilers just seem to generate
 >>>> fairly straightforward, low-level asm code.
 >>> Compilers do that because there IS NOTHING ELSE at that level.
 >> Totally false: http://www.bixoft.nl/english/course6.htm

 > Now you're just being ridiculous.  Assembly language is just a

Ray and Dave, I realize one or both of you are getting a little
heated, but I think it would help tone things down if phrases with "no
technical content" such as "being ridiculous" were eliminated.

 > symbolic representation of machine code, with an almost one-to-one
 > mapping, and (sometimes) some macro capabilities thrown in the
 > automate the repetitive and tedious parts.  Compilers don't have
 > much use for macros since they are already automated tools themself.

I'm never programmed in assembly language or machine language, but
this seems to make sense to me.

[snip]

 >>> It generates 'scripts'
 >> It does?  Can you point me to anything that supports your claim?  As
 >> far as I understand it generates very basic Makefiles.
 >
 > Don't be dense.  You know that I'm referring to makefiles as scripts and
 > you know that's exactly what cmake generates.

OK, I thought that's what you were thinking, Ray; however, "Don't be
dense" seems a bit strong.  (Of course this maybe common where you
work and seems normal to you.  If so, I apologize for being overly
sensitive [especially since the remark wasn't aimed at me.]). OTOH, I
can see Dave's point because if you didn't mean shell scripts, why use
the term "script" instead of the more accurate term, "Makefile"?  I've
gotten the impression from past posts that Dave's very keen about
using the correct term, and this is maybe why he misinterpreted what
you meant by "script".

[snip]

 >>> It produces scripts to drive an obsolete tool.  Cmake provides
 >>> artificial life support for make.  Make should be allowed to die
 >>> in peace.  It's time has come and gone.

 >> Again, no technical content.

 > Why is it that every point that goes against you gets waved off as
 > having "no technical content"?

Did you mean to say *most* points or did you really mean *every*
point?  I'm not being dense.  When I say "always" or "every
time" in the middle of a heated argument, I usually don't mean it.

I think Dave meant that "obsolete tool" has no technical content
because it's a conclusion which *may* be based on some technical content
provided earlier.  Also, "should be allowed to die in peace" has no
technical content.  No one can base a decision on using CMake based on
these remarks.  That's my interpretation of what Dave means.

[snip]