[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Premake vs. CMake
- From: "Alexander Gladysh" <agladysh@...>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:39:37 +0300
> > 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.
Aside from emotions there is an economic reason. There is a limited
amount of such information one can absorb at a given period of time.
Usually projects are complicated enough for its developers information
absorbing throughput to be filled to capacitiy. It is always better
for the commercial project for its developers to spend time absorbing
information related directly to the project itself than related to
auxiliary build systems.