Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On 7/30/07, Andy Dingfelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. CMake's level of Java support is a strategic risk. Eclipse isn't just a cross-platform crowd, it's a cross-platform heavily Java crowd. So if CMake's Java support is irritating to work with, that could put off Eclipse tool developers, whatever CMake's C/C++ merits are. On the other hand, getting one's feet wet with Eclipse and Java would be a good way to drive the improvement of CMake's Java support. I would just anticipate a lot of bumps, and invitations to substantial work. I do think that light would ultimately be seen at the end of the tunnel, however. Code::Blocks doesn't have any Java encumbrance, it's a C/C++ developer crowd. Of course it doesn't have nearly the number of users as Eclipse, nor the commercial acceptance and clout, so that's a strategic risk. I think someone would have to either be a Code::Blocks diehard and really want to get it done, or else it would have to be relatively easy to do. Otherwise, nobody would bother. Another risk with Code::Blocks is their release policy is immature. They might have great stuff, but they can't seem to manage to put an official binary distribution out there. Instead one does this daily snapshot download dance, grabbing 3 different files. It suggests to me that their architecture could be in flux, which could make CMake support a moving target. Chasing a handful of devs that don't really value release maturity or commercial stability might be no fun at all. But I don't actually know their culture or the relative stability of their code, so I won't pass judgment. Be sure to research it before diving in though. The Eclipse community is very mature as far as their release policies. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
Brandon (and everyone else reading this), I fear you misunderstood something from my last message, when you said CMake's level of Java support is a strategic risk. Eclipse isn't just a cross-platform crowd, it's a cross-platform heavily Java crowd. What I meant was that we need as good as possible integration between cmake and the eclipse CDT. As I am sure you are aware, the CDT is 100% C++, and has nothing to do with Java. Regarding Eclipse in a more general sense so we are all clear, I want to get one possible misconception out of the way... While the Eclipse platform was primarily written using Java, the eclipse platform should by no-means a Java IDE. Forgive me if you know about all this already... but I am sure there are other C++ folks here that are not aware of the background. Think of it this way: How can you call Eclipse an IDE if it does not include a compiler? In other words, how can it be an Integrated Development Environment, if it doesn't come with everything you need to actually use it? What the Eclipse platform really IS though, is a great platform for making IDEs. One great example of an IDE written using the Eclipse platform is the Eclipse Java IDE, which is arguably the most popular Java IDE around. Of more interest to this group though, I assume are C/C++ IDEs. Besides the Eclipse C/C++ IDE (CDT) 4.0 which I mentioned before, there are number or open source and or commercial C++ IDEs built using the Eclipse Platform including: Nokia Carbide C++ IDE Wind River Workbench LynuxWorks Luminosity QNX Momentics ACCESS Linux Platform Development Suite Mentor Graphics EDGE Developer Studio Telelog Tau Hi-tech Hi-Tide Now you might ask: why does this matter? Or Why are you telling us all this? The point I am making is that if a cmake plugin plays well with the Eclipse CDT IDE and makes C++ development easier, we get exposure to the potential userbase automatically for all those other C++ IDEs listed above as well automatically, as they are built on top of the Eclipse platform. So, to make a long story short, don't worry about the java crowd. This is all about C/C++ :) Cheers, Ding. Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31/07/2007 2:22:56 a.m. On 7/30/07, Andy Dingfelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. CMake's level of Java support is a strategic risk. Eclipse isn't just a cross-platform crowd, it's a cross-platform heavily Java crowd. So if CMake's Java support is irritating to work with, that could put off Eclipse tool developers, whatever CMake's C/C++ merits are. On the other hand, getting one's feet wet with Eclipse and Java would be a good way to drive the improvement of CMake's Java support. I would just anticipate a lot of bumps, and invitations to substantial work. I do think that light would ultimately be seen at the end of the tunnel, however. Code::Blocks doesn't have any Java encumbrance, it's a C/C++ developer crowd. Of course it doesn't have nearly the number of users as Eclipse, nor the commercial acceptance and clout, so that's a strategic risk. I think someone would have to either be a Code::Blocks diehard and really want to get it done, or else it would have to be relatively easy to do. Otherwise, nobody would bother. Another risk with Code::Blocks is their release policy is immature. They might have great stuff, but they can't seem to manage to put an official binary distribution out there. Instead one does this daily snapshot download dance, grabbing 3 different files. It suggests to me that their architecture could be in flux, which could make CMake support a moving target. Chasing a handful of devs that don't really value release maturity or commercial stability might be no fun at all. But I don't actually know their culture or the relative stability of their code, so I won't pass judgment. Be sure to research it before diving in though. The Eclipse community is very mature as far as their release policies. 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
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On 7/30/07, Andy Dingfelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brandon (and everyone else reading this), I fear you misunderstood something from my last message, when you said CMake's level of Java support is a strategic risk. Eclipse isn't just a cross-platform crowd, it's a cross-platform heavily Java crowd. What I meant was that we need as good as possible integration between cmake and the eclipse CDT. As I am sure you are aware, the CDT is 100% C++, and has nothing to do with Java. No I was not aware of that. I assumed the CDT uses underlying Java components to manipulate C++ text files, and otherwise needs to interface to Java in various ways. The idea that CDT would be completely independent from the rest of Eclipse and not have to deal with Java at all seems improbable. But I have not delved into the architecture. What the Eclipse platform really IS though, is a great platform for making IDEs. Yes but my assumption is you have to write Java code to make more IDEs. The strategic risk is that CDT implementors are a hybrid C++ and Java crowd. So if CMake doesn't perform well as a hybrid C++ and Java build tool, they may not care about supporting it. Compare Ant, which of course does Java well, and had the beginnings of some MSVC C++ capabilities last time I checked 2 years ago. I don't know what's happened since then. But the CDT developers may rightly ask, Why should we put our energy into CMake when we could put it into Ant? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On 30.07.07 18:08:37, Brandon Van Every wrote: On 7/30/07, Andy Dingfelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brandon (and everyone else reading this), I fear you misunderstood something from my last message, when you said CMake's level of Java support is a strategic risk. Eclipse isn't just a cross-platform crowd, it's a cross-platform heavily Java crowd. What I meant was that we need as good as possible integration between cmake and the eclipse CDT. As I am sure you are aware, the CDT is 100% C++, and has nothing to do with Java. No I was not aware of that. I assumed the CDT uses underlying Java components to manipulate C++ text files, and otherwise needs to interface to Java in various ways. The idea that CDT would be completely independent from the rest of Eclipse and not have to deal with Java at all seems improbable. But I have not delved into the architecture. What Andy means is that when you install CDT you don't have a Java IDE, you have a plain C/C++ IDE (unless of course I'm mistaken and there's no plain-CDT download). Of course CDT still uses the java-written eclipse platform sdk, but it doesn't have anything else to do with Java. Its completely about writing C/C++ applications. It also doesn't use the buildsystem thats used for java projects, but hand-written Makefiles (or whatever you find a plugin for). What the Eclipse platform really IS though, is a great platform for making IDEs. Yes but my assumption is you have to write Java code to make more IDEs. Right. Andreas -- You have the capacity to learn from mistakes. You'll learn a lot today. ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
I personally think that the Eclipse CDT might be a good option to explore instead of focusing on other smaller, less used IDEs. The Eclipse userbase is huge and the CDT portion is growing with leaps and bounds, especially in the embedded and cross platform areas. It seems to me that the tighter that cmake could integrate into eclipse, the larger the cmake userbase would grow, much in the same way that eclipse has adopted the Maven build system in the Java community. Thoughts from any other Eclipse users out there? Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 26/07/2007 6:50:20 p.m. Zitat von protein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since Dev C++ is a nice free IDE in windows and is developing rapidly. Is it possible that one day cmake will support Dev C++ project file generation? Probably not unless you write such a generator. The youngest entry in devcpp CVS is 23 month old and the 4.9.9.2 beta release is probably not getting an update, anymore, but it not very stable. The v4 version as an alternative download is close to unusable, too. Not too many chances, I'd say. Some suggest CodeBlocks instead but what shall be the impression of a software that is _only_ available via CVS because its authors do not dare to make a release :-/ I'd suggest to use VCexpress as editor and compile on command line. HS ___ 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
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
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
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
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
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On Thursday 26 July 2007 08:54, Mike Jackson wrote: ... I will throw my hat in the ring on this one.. Eclipse with CDT: Available on Unix/Linux/OS X/Windows Uses GNU Tool Chain by default OpenSource Updated Regularly Uses Makefiles by default so basically CMake supports it. We would be more than happy about a patch which implements an Eclipse generator :-) Alex ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:47, Brandon Van Every wrote: On 7/25/07, protein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Since Dev C++ is a nice free IDE in windows and is developing rapidly. Is it possible that one day cmake will support Dev C++ project file generation? As far as I can tell, interest in Dev C++ has waned because its development has gotten stale. People seem more interested in Code::Blocks. http://www.codeblocks.org/ Yes, I tried and cvs snapshots are working without problems. There is a CodeBlocks generator in cmake cvs (in its beginnings). It needs testers, so I'd suggest try CodeBlocks and the generator in cmake cvs. Bye Alex I will throw my hat in the ring on this one.. Eclipse with CDT: Available on Unix/Linux/OS X/Windows Uses GNU Tool Chain by default OpenSource Updated Regularly Uses Makefiles by default so basically CMake supports it. Never tried Code::Blocks.. but I am really happy with Eclipse CDT. -- Mike Jackson Senior Research Engineer Innovative Management Technology Services ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:47, Brandon Van Every wrote: On 7/25/07, protein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Since Dev C++ is a nice free IDE in windows and is developing rapidly. Is it possible that one day cmake will support Dev C++ project file generation? As far as I can tell, interest in Dev C++ has waned because its development has gotten stale. People seem more interested in Code::Blocks. http://www.codeblocks.org/ Yes, I tried and cvs snapshots are working without problems. There is a CodeBlocks generator in cmake cvs (in its beginnings). It needs testers, so I'd suggest try CodeBlocks and the generator in cmake cvs. Bye Alex ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On 7/26/07, Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zitat von protein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since Dev C++ is a nice free IDE in windows and is developing rapidly. Is it possible that one day cmake will support Dev C++ project file generation? Probably not unless you write such a generator. The youngest entry in devcpp CVS is 23 month old and the 4.9.9.2 beta release is probably not getting an update, anymore, but it not very stable. The v4 version as an alternative download is close to unusable, too. Not too many chances, I'd say. Some suggest CodeBlocks instead but what shall be the impression of a software that is _only_ available via CVS because its authors do not dare to make a release :-/ I'd suggest to use VCexpress as editor and compile on command line. HS ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake I don't think code blocks can be compared to VC Express. I think VCExpress is not a solution that can be used instead of code blocks. VC is probably never going to be available on UNIX, code blocks is, plus VCExpress cannot be used with gnu compiler suite or other compiler suites. That is something supported by Code Blocks. I don't think code blocks can be compared to VC Express. -- Olivier Delannoy ATER PRiSM Laboratory Versailles University, FRANCE ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
Zitat von Olivier Delannoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 7/26/07, Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zitat von protein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since Dev C++ is a nice free IDE in windows and is developing rapidly. Is it possible that one day cmake will support Dev C++ project file generation? Probably not unless you write such a generator. The youngest entry in devcpp CVS is 23 month old and the 4.9.9.2 beta release is probably not getting an update, anymore, but it not very stable. The v4 version as an alternative download is close to unusable, too. Not too many chances, I'd say. Some suggest CodeBlocks instead but what shall be the impression of a software that is _only_ available via CVS because its authors do not dare to make a release :-/ I'd suggest to use VCexpress as editor and compile on command line. I don't think code blocks can be compared to VC Express. Surely not but it also has not generator in cmake and not even a current stable release. The explanation on the codeblocks site is just a lame excuse for a missing release management. But that's not on-topic here. I think VCExpress is not a solution that can be used instead of code blocks. It terms of cmake, it is (on windows). VC is probably never going to be available on UNIX So what? You can use KDevelop, then. code blocks is Where is it available. Some random CVS dump doesn't really count unless there is a statement from the developers that a particular version is known to work in a decent way (usually known as release). plus VCExpress cannot be used with gnu compiler suite or other compiler suites. That is something supported by Code Blocks. Wasn't there something about external Makefile projects? In this case, it would, although cmake doesn't support this (yet?) just like the whole codeblocks thing. HS ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] cmake support Dev C++
On 7/25/07, protein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Since Dev C++ is a nice free IDE in windows and is developing rapidly. Is it possible that one day cmake will support Dev C++ project file generation? As far as I can tell, interest in Dev C++ has waned because its development has gotten stale. People seem more interested in Code::Blocks. http://www.codeblocks.org/ Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
