On 6/17/19 6:46 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 17/06/2019 12.08, Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote: >> Or use a buildsystem that doesn't take to the hell? > > Real world experience has shown that there is no such thing. > > As much as people like to bitch about how "convoluted" CMake is, CMake > doesn't just set out to be obtuse. That complexity exists for a reason. > > Any build system that claims to eliminate that complexity *will* fail. > Either it will end up growing that complexity *anyway*, because it *has* > to, or it will only work in a small subset of possible environments.
This is very true. The problem build tools are solving is complex. When designing a build tool you can choose between simple and powerful. Qbs chose the latter. However, one can design a powerful build tool with a front-end language that doesn't make you want to scratch your eyes out. > The difference between QBS and CMake is like the difference between a > bright-eyed recruit just out of school and a grizzled veteran. Do you > want the one that looks pretty and knows the *theory* (however > advanced), but gets confused when the real world doesn't conform to his > classroom expectations, or the one that looks worn but has the > *experience* and knows how to get things done? I wouldn't know where qbs gets "confused". Don't spread false information and let it die in peace, thanks. On the topic of why build tools ignite such hot discussions I have my own theory: Experience shows that Jane Developer sees the build tool as necessary evil. She doesn't give a damn about details and grudgingly invests time in learning as much as is needed for the task at hand. Over time she gets a specialist - unwillingly - and defends this investment made with teeth and claws. BR, Joerg _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
