> > 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.
>
> Clunky, fine. "Less powerful" with respect to build systems, has yet
> to be proven. Until someone proves it, with a concrete example,
> Kitware will never be convinced that any "better" language is needed.
> So I'm saying, quit talking about how Lua or some other language is
> supposed to be better, and find something that proves it would be
> better.
I'm really not the guy to be discussing it with. I'm just the guy who says each
tool has a purpose, and CMake is a tool with a perfectly reasonable purpose
that it's quite good at.
The CMake language as a device for driving CMake is a fairly reasonable
language for the relatively limited scope of work required for a build system.
Could a "real" language drive CMake more cleanly and more powerfully? Could
this language produce more modular, faster to develop, higher quality make
scripts with better abstractions? Probably. But is there a sufficiently large
gap between CMake as it works now, and what it could be, to reach a critical
mass of interest? Nah, probably not. Ergo, things will stay as they are.
And Brandon, just for the record, I don't really care either way.
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
