Re: Premake vs. CMake

["Brandon Van Every" <bvanevery@...>]

On Feb 1, 2008 6:36 PM, Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All I can say is that in *our* specific case, CMake language was the
> showstopper. No matter if it was bad decision or right, or was it well
> thought rejection, or mere dislike of lot of all-caps in code.

BTW the new style convention is lowercase for CMake commands.  All
caps is still used for keywords and CMake defined variables.  I agree
that it's more readable to have fewer things shouting at you.  Both
caps and lowercase work for commands though.  I think that has been
true for quite awhile, and it may have always been true, but the
documentation was written in all caps so people imitated that.  Now
the docs are lowercase where they can be.

> One more thing to keep in mind is that such smaller projects usually
> may not afford to keep build tools specialist as a separare vacancy --
> such man would be idle most of the time. For anyone in team who does
> it, maintaining build tools is an (annoying but necessary) recurring
> part-time task, distracting them from the main purpose -- writing the
> project itself. If this task has a steep learning curve such as
> learning a new custom language -- this decreases "initial comfort"
> significantly.

I understand that perception, but at the same time, I also regard it
as whining.  I regularly absorb vast quantities of info from the
internet.  I may not like new APIs, but I will absorb them if they do
something for me.  I'm part of the self-motivated internet open source
breed, that is my culture.  So I assume are most Lua developers on
this list.  It is strange to me to see people that are facile at all
manner of internet open source hacking, construct artificial barriers
about what they're willing to swallow.  I mean how do you get around
in open source if you're not good at absorbing things and tearing them
apart?  From that standpoint CMake script is pretty easy to get
started with.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every