On Jan 31, 2008 3:04 PM, Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@gmail.com> wrote:
Brandon Van Every asked:
How large is your codebase? What does your project do?
We're using premake to build our crossplatform (Linux x86 / Linux x64
/ Windows / OS X) set of... well, complex TCP-services.
Our project is under heavy development, and right now consist of
approximately 40K lines of C++, 40K lines of Lua and a few 3rd party
Lua modules which are built by custom-written premake scripts as well.
There are approximately 15 .so and executable files in total for each
of two build targets (so far, release and debug).
Our premake scripts are approximately 500 lines in total.
Ok, so in the scheme of things, a small-to-medium sized project. I'm
currently translating a 400MB codebase from GNU Autoconf + GMake -->
CMake. Translating the configure.in alone results in a 10K LOC
CMakeLists.txt, and the source code tree has thousands of Makefile.in
files to translate as well. Recently I think CMake has been proving
that it can handle large scale build projects, for instance KDE uses
it. Usually when I see the "we prefer premake" sentiment, or some
such for another build tool, it's a small project. I've been
interested in what advantages these tools offer, whether for small
projects, or otherwise. I'm also interested in people's perceptions
about the advantages, and how that squares with design, maintenance,
and scale-up over the long haul. For instance, many people are of the
opinion that a mainstream programming language is beneficial to a
build system. Have you seen that actually pay off for you in some
tangible way? Or was it about comfort level, feeling that you didn't
have to learn something new, and it didn't turn out to matter in
practice?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
