Hi all: After just building a set of custom RPMs for the new plplot and all its dependencies (including cmake), I would just as soon not see plplot's build system changed again soon.
I also struggle with understanding cmake (I have not spent much time on it, but it seems confusing) but a change in something as basic as the build system imposes a fair amount of work on users. I find autoconf confusing as well, for what its worth. I would bet a python or perl-based system would also end up being tricky and full of odd platform-dependent quirks. So, here's one vote for stability! Thanks, Doug dh...@ucar.edu Software Engineer UCAR - COSMIC, Tel. (303) 497-2611 On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Hazen Babcock wrote: > Werner Smekal wrote: >> Hi Geoffrey, >>> But what about Python? If I was trying to build a system from >>> scratch with >>> the same goals as cmake (as far as I understand that from the >>> reading that I >>> have done about it), there is no way on earth I would've started off >>> by >>> defining a new language. Especially not a quirky, byzantine >>> language. Isn't >>> Python on every platform that cmake is on? Wouldn't it make a lot >>> more sense >>> to have used a "real language", with great data structures, and >>> libraries, >>> and a module system, and all that? >> >> Introducing scons: http://www.scons.org/ - more or less the same aims >> then cmake, but all in Python. But at the time when we changed the >> build system, it just wasn't up to the task. I tried it for one of my >> bigger projects and failed, since it didn't get the basic things right >> - e.g. project files for Visual C++. And in my opinion the whole >> structure to configure things was not well "developed". Although the >> project was quite "big", it didn't depend on many 3rd party libraries, >> but the configure files where quite big. And I had to configure things >> for every operating system I used - this is much better done by cmake. > > I'm also a Python fan, and I also struggle with CMake, but my impression > is that the last line of the comparison with CMake section at the link > below captures the current situation pretty well: > > "To sum up, my very subjective opinion is that scons is a better idea, > but CMake has a stronger implementation " > > http://www.scons.org/wiki/SconsVsOtherBuildTools#head-3d0faf3f1d4d3b73f31eaa0ba97d4df18a474369 > > -Hazen > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! > Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. > Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org > _______________________________________________ > Plplot-devel mailing list > Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
