Re: Premake vs. CMake

["Gregg Reynolds" <dev@...>]

On 2/1/08, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah but do you really believe that as a build tool, premake is of the
> same industrial quality as CMake?  CMake has probably 2 orders of
> magnitude more development resources going into it.  So the Lua in

I wonder what happens when those resources go away.  Maybe a community
would pick it up, maybe not.  One of the advantages of autoconf is a
large community of people who use it and keep it alive, in spite of
its warts.  Plus it's unix-like - a collection of lots of small tools.
 The CMake source looks much more monolithic and about as complicated
as autoconf to  me.  A lua-based tool would presumably have the
advantage of simplicity.  Not to mention portability.  Autoconf is
designed to generate shell code dependent on a very few tools commonly
available on all (unix) systems; a lua-based tool could (in principle)
depend on nothing more than a local C compiler.  Having to ship CMake
with one's project seems like a major drawback to me, although I
suppose for megaprojects that's less of an issue.

-gregg