[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Premake vs. CMake
- From: "Brandon Van Every" <bvanevery@...>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:08:48 -0500
On Feb 2, 2008 5:42 PM, Thiago Bastos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't have much experience with CMake or Premake, but my first impressions
> are that CMake's script is ugly as hell.
Meaning what, you don't like capital letters?
You don't like some_command(whatever blah blah blah) ?
You don't like typing set(foo blah) instead of foo=blah ?
> I was not very impressed by CMake either. It obviously has an edge over
> Premake in terms of maturity and features, but I feel confident that a group
> of 2-3 advanced Lua users could design a superior build tool based on Lua
> (drawing ideas from Premake, SCons, CMake, qmake, etc.). I myself felt
> tempted to start such a project ;-)
Ok, what's the biggest build system you've worked on to date? And,
what would your business model be? The world isn't interested in the
work of a few Lua guys who blow off the development and support when
it's no longer amusing. Critical mass of community and "who's gonna
do the gruntwork" are important long term issues.
> Premake is interesting, but not as extensible or powerful as one would
> expect. It does not support advanced build steps and does not have
> "extensions". For instance, it's unable to build applications that use Qt (a
> must-have, in my case).
CMake does something with Qt. Not sure what, I just know that there's
an e-mail in my box every day about Qt something or other. I never
read it because I don't care about Qt. I think someone has made a Qt
front end for CMake, analogous to the MFC based CMakeSetup.
> I have previously used QMake, Ant, and am currently using SCons, but I've
> found it overly complex and way too slow for medium-sized projects.
CMake is fast.
> A mix of
> Premake, CMake and SCons based on Lua would come in handy.
Or you could just contribute to CMake. I understand the NIH impulse
but I don't subscribe to it.
Brandon Van Every