On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, backwards compatibility is something we take very seriously. If > someone picks CMake as a build tool, we have to respect that choice and > try our best not to break that project. There are very large projects > that have many lines of CMake code in them. People have put a great > deal of effort into creating those files. If they don't have the time > to re-write in a new language, I don't blame them.
This is why I think an automated translation tool, say from CMake script --> Lua, is essential to a migration strategy. > I also won't try to > force them to do it, by obsoleting the current language. I think if the automated translation tool had proven itself for a couple of years, it would be perfectly reasonable to force people to move on. So there is still that 2 year window of supporting 2 languages. > So, we might have two official languages someday, but no more than that. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
