Re: CMake and Lua

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

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Eric Tetz <erictetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  You Ain't Gonna Need It is the exact opposite philosophy from
>  >  future proofing.  Compare also, Worse Is Better.
>
>  If you believe in either of those philosophies, that last thing you
>  want to do is design a new language from the ground up when a suitable
>  library component is ready go. Rolling your own is comparable to
>  writing your own printf because you Ain't Gonna Need all of format
>  specifiers in the library version: it's a bastardization of the
>  philosophy, not adherence to it.

That's true, and indeed I'm wrestling with the issue in terms of
liklihood of success, making money, not disappearing into a career
black hole, etc.  But the reality is, Lua is not an exotic
self-referential metaprogramming assembler.  I think that's what I've
always wanted for 3D graphics.  I suppose I will have to contemplate
low level vs. high level 3D graphics a while longer before committing.

Bear in mind though, my ideas about designing a new language have
nothing to do with CMake or build systems.  If I were writing CMake
from scratch today, I would start with Lua.  That is not the
historical condition of CMake however.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every