On Monday 06 September 2010 01:53:55 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > Well, I guess what I mean is, compared to something like SCons, Rake or > A-A-P. Those tools, like cmake, handle cross-platform no problem while > providing far saner syntax than traditional make. But unline cmake, they > don't have any reliance on traditional make even on unix. Granted, they > don't generate IDE project files, but my initial impression of that is > importing information *from* IDE project files would seem to be a more > practical approach. > > From what tiny bit I read on the site (it seemed suprisingly hard to find > the documentation on the site, but maybe that was just me), it does seem > heavily C/C++ centric, and so it looks like it may be able to handle > different C/C++ compilers fairly well. By contrast, SCons and Rake, as far > as I can tell, don't seem to have any specific provisions for abstracting > different compilers for a single language (though A-A-P does try to do > that). So maybe that has something to do with it? > > Again, I hope I'm not coming across as challenging the usefulness or > quality of cmake - that's not my intent. Just curious about why it chooses > not to ditch traditional-make entierly like some of the other build > systems do.
I really have no idea why cmake doesn't ditch makefiles. It's probably because it's intended as a wrapper for a build system as opposed to being the build system itself, but I don't know. As for the documentation, I thought that it was extremely poor overall, so I got the book. They really should improve their documentation. - Jonathan M Davis