> On Dec 23, 2007 2:50 PM, Andrew Roark wrote:
> >
> > But the idea of a more powerful programming language that drives
> the
>
same cmake logic is pretty interesting....
>
> I encourage you to get beyond the "ideas" stage by seeking compelling
> exemplars in other build system communities.
I'm not the guy with "ideas" on the language - I was just trying to help
another poster achieve their goal of processing files!
> What's a major project
> in SCons or some other build system that would be really clunky to do
> in CMake?
I think the point the other poster in this thread and the posters in the Lua
discussions are making is that CMake is a good meta build system, not clunky as
you hint at, but that the _CMake script language_ is clunky and less powerful
than a real language. What CMake can generate from a descriptive language is
excellent, so pair the tool with a better language.
Andrew
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
