On 11/12/13 03:20 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Man o man, it is worse than autoconf (how is that possible?)
Its the essential masochism of programming, where shitty interfaces
are elevated to
grand status because some people can cope with them. Notice that this
phenomenon
also appears in mathematics.
Just a drive-by comment, but I can't help add to some flames to this
Are you people on drugs?
1) My personal hands on experience - I'd rather deal with cmake syntax
than m4 any day of the week
2) cmake is super easy to bootstrap everywhere - autocrap and all the
auto* stuff is a bitch by comparison
3) cmake is more or less portable and adding new backends is possible
(ninja)
4) cmake projects typically lack the idiot proof ./configure --help
option list, but there is ccmake (which I've never used). (Internally we
overcome this with good documentation)
-------------
I know of some complaints about the cmake codebase itself - I'm not
going to comment on those.
cmake may leave a rash, but better than having gangrene aka autoconf
--------------
More productively - Specific complaints about cmake? Have any of those
complaints been raised on the cmake developers list? In my experience
they are quite responsive
