[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Bou - a Lua-based Build System
- From: Taco Hoekwater <taco@...>
- Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:32:38 +0100
This will be my last reply on-list, as this is veering alarmingly
It's in the CMake
mailing list archives, along with discussion of Lua pros and cons,
which is what triggered the historical query of "Why did you do it
I realise any syntax can become normal to you after enough use
(Hey, I've spent years writing TeX macros. Believe me, I know).
But input syntax is not a trivial matter, not to be brushed of the
table with "we are professionals using a professional program, so it
is perfectly ok if it is idiosyncratic".
I find the lack of punctuation in CMake confusing, and for me
personally, it looks about as inviting as the 1990s fvwm
config format (and those used m4 extensively) merged with Tcl.
I had to look up Cweb to know what it is. CMake is a strong C/C++
build system. You can build anything you like with
add_custom_command, but the built-in bells and whistles are aimed at
C/C++ developers. Cweb looks esoteric; I find an expectation of
off-the-shelf Cweb support unreasonable.
Ah. Well, since it works OK for me in autoconf, make, and even
Bou, I fail to see exactly how CMake is the better choice.
Have you had trouble building trivial C/C++ programs in CMake?
I guess the answer is no, but I could not get anything running
except for the supplied examples, so I am not so sure that
Anyway, I did not want to attack CMake: I simply wanted to point
out that it is *not* the "right tool for everything"(tm). There
is a place for Bou c.s., whether you find them a waste of time,