Brandon, I hear what you are saying loud and clear, and agree pretty much with what you are saying.
As you alluded to, my query was simply a way of finding out the current state of things, and I very well my get my A into G and organize some work around improving the integration between cmake and eclipse. What I don't want to do though is reinvent the wheel. I do think it is important to learn from others past mistakes and success stories and I value any experiences like this that you and others can share. Getting back to my vision for how cmake *could* work better, I find myself comparing cmake to maven. In this case, maven is a widely used mature tool for doing (java) builds and was not integrated (or at least not very well) into eclipse. I very good team of volunteers has spent a lot of time developing an eclipse plugin for maven2 and it is now a huge success. What they did NOT do is tie maven to eclipse. What I mean by this is that Eclipse uses maven but does not drive the overall maven strategy or functionality, as maven is a huge success on it's own, via the command line, much as cmake is. Why am I worrying about eclipse (plugin) integration? To put things into perspective, there were over 1.3 million downloads of eclipse in the first 30 days eclipse 3.3 was available. What I do not know is how many users downloaded the C++ CDT system (I assume hundreds of thousands). I have asked this question but have not gotten a response yet. Personally, my motivation is that I want to use Eclipse on Linux to develop both java and c++ apps, and want them to run on mac, Linux and PC. I have seen multiple discussions in a variety of places that talk about how to do this, some with better luck than others. I see cmake as a natural fit for Eclipse as (IMHO) Eclipse is perhaps the most widely used *multi-platform* environment out there, running on basically any OS that java runs on, and everyone here knows the strengths of cmake, so I don't need to expand upon that. I look forward to hearing your ideas and thoughts on this topic. Cheers, Ding >>> "Brandon Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 30/07/2007 3:29:07 p.m. >>> On 7/29/07, Andy Dingfelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally think that the Eclipse CDT might be a good option to > explore instead of focusing on other smaller, less used IDEs. Well, yeah, like, duh. > Thoughts from any other Eclipse users out there? But there's this funny thing about open source. It's not about "thoughts." It's about actions that actual people choose to undertake. And they do it for their own reasons. Whatever turns them on, or whatever makes them money. If a Code::Blocks individual or group up and decides they're gonna make Code::Blocks support for CMake, hey presto, suddenly you have Code::Blocks support. If an Eclipse individual or group gets a wild hair, hey presto, Eclipse support. What doesn't exist, however - and I think sometimes people make this mistake, which is why I'm saying this - is some kind of labor pool that just goes and implements stuff because it would be a good idea. That's somewhat true in the proprietary commercial world, but no open source volunteer works that way. Thus from the standpoint of people who will actually do the work, it has nothing to do with whether Code::Blocks is more or less advisable than Eclipse. I chose to make a great CMake build for the Chicken Scheme compiler. I did it because open source builds are a sorry state of affairs on Windows. It just seriously bugs me, and I don't think I should have to defect to Linux or swallow the FSF kool-aid to see quality engineering. I don't know if there are even 100 people in the world who care about what I have written. But a few people do care, and I know that unlike most of the other open source builds out there, mine definitely doesn't suck. I made $0 on this. I did it for purely ideological reasons, not what was advisable. In fact, I was so ideological that I almost got evicted twice while pursuing the work! That got old; thankfully, now I'm making money on my CMake skills so honed. So there's poetic justice in where I'm at now. But sensible allocation of resources had nothing to do with why I got started, or why I stuck with it for a man-year. In fact, I daresay anyone sensible would just go get a "real" job and never bother! Like, one of those proprietary corporate jobs where some manager tells a bunch of underlings what's most advisable and where they're going to put their development energies for the next 6 months. I don't want to be too harsh on an innocent query. Soliciting people's interest is often a 1st step in organizing. Action is what counts though. The only way to lead in open source, is by example. Generally speaking, you can't tell open source people what to do. They do what they're inspired to do, because usually there isn't any other reward for it. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of Landcare Research. SirTrack http://www.sirtrack.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake