Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
Quoting Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary, thanks. But, no thanks. With all those problems I did not even bother checking the speed. I got a chuckle out of their self-description on http://www.ohloh.net/tags/build/make , which one might view as a short list of open source build tools. Though it comes last in the arena of the build systems, we believe that Waf is a vastly superior alternative to its competitors (Autotools, Scons, Cmake, Ant, etc) for building software, and especially for open-source projects Yep, that's why it's in the top tier of Popular tools! :-) There's something to be said for tooting your own horn, but not to the extent of making oneself soft or complacent about a competitor's capabilities. I think the day that CMake has really won the build tool wars, we'll be seeing shelfs full of books at Barnes Noble and tons of jobs listing it as a must have skill. I wonder where Waf thinks it is, relative to all of that. Happy with the $0 we really don't have to bother with Windows open source market? It's not only waf does not care about Windows but they explicitly do not want to support it. That's the reason why KDE4 is using CMake instead of SCons or waf. -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
On Dec 18, 2007 3:08 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not only waf does not care about Windows but they explicitly do not want to support it. That's the reason why KDE4 is using CMake instead of SCons or waf. Heh! Well it's no different than the FSF's attitude with GNU Autoconf and GMake. Screw Windows is a meme that will die, I think. I mean, as big as Linux has become, Windows is still not going anywhere. We'll be doing cross-platform dances for quite some time. Meanwhile you've got Macs emulating Windows or dual-booting Windows because that's what consumers actually want. MS has majorly screwed up with Vista, but I don't think the Linux crowd is profiting from that, I think Apple is. I think we're all pretty settled that Autoconf and GMake are gonna die. It's only a question of what tools people will migrate to. I agree with Alan that CMake will gain many converts in the near term. I don't agree that it has to stay that way. You know, in a lot of ways the FSF is guilty of providing us with really stable stuff, but really old stuff. For instance, the FSF couldn't get GNU/Hurd done, so GNU/Linux took over. Screw Windows is all very fine and well, but if the pace of your RD is glacial, the rest of the open source industry isn't going to sit around waiting for your Windows-killing software. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary, thanks. But, no thanks. With all those problems I did not even bother checking the speed. I got a chuckle out of their self-description on http://www.ohloh.net/tags/build/make , which one might view as a short list of open source build tools. Though it comes last in the arena of the build systems, we believe that Waf is a vastly superior alternative to its competitors (Autotools, Scons, Cmake, Ant, etc) for building software, and especially for open-source projects Yep, that's why it's in the top tier of Popular tools! :-) There's something to be said for tooting your own horn, but not to the extent of making oneself soft or complacent about a competitor's capabilities. I think the day that CMake has really won the build tool wars, we'll be seeing shelfs full of books at Barnes Noble and tons of jobs listing it as a must have skill. I wonder where Waf thinks it is, relative to all of that. Happy with the $0 we really don't have to bother with Windows open source market? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
I took a close look to Waf some months ago while searching for the ideal build tool for the projects I had to port. I used to talk a lot with the author and found out that the Waf build system isn't superior at all to other alternatives like CMake. Also, the author just don't care about other OS than Linux (that is partly why KDE haven't made the switch to Waf). In continuation with this idea, the MSVC support is very (very) poor. Also, the author isn't very mind opened (to new ideas). And he don't like CMake ;). The author might have good ideas although but I don't like the way it is implemented. Regards, Félix C. Morency Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:38:28 -0500 From: Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CMake] Waf build tool To: cmake@cmake.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary, thanks. But, no thanks. With all those problems I did not even bother checking the speed. I got a chuckle out of their self-description on http://www.ohloh.net/tags/build/make , which one might view as a short list of open source build tools. Though it comes last in the arena of the build systems, we believe that Waf is a vastly superior alternative to its competitors (Autotools, Scons, Cmake, Ant, etc) for building software, and especially for open-source projects Yep, that's why it's in the top tier of Popular tools! :-) There's something to be said for tooting your own horn, but not to the extent of making oneself soft or complacent about a competitor's capabilities. I think the day that CMake has really won the build tool wars, we'll be seeing shelfs full of books at Barnes Noble and tons of jobs listing it as a must have skill. I wonder where Waf thinks it is, relative to all of that. Happy with the $0 we really don't have to bother with Windows open source market? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
Brandon Van Every wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 1:55 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've subscribed to the SCons mailing list. The SCons community has people who got fed up with it and started their own RD. It seems that the SCons Python 1.5 limitation is a serious one, as developers generally only know Python = 2.2. Waf is the offering of a fellow who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. http://code.google.com/p/waf/ A quick eval of waf * Its dependency checker is broken. /usr/include is not checked for speed. * Swig support is broken. * no real multi platform support, it is all do it yourself. * out-of-source builds is kind of broken. * proper out-of-source builds needs the wscript to be set up with variants (good idea, but badly done). * build dir creates stubs for all subdirectories, not only those in build (yuck). * no listing of tasks (yuck). * you are always forced to write a configure function (yuck). * WAY too verbose (yuck). * badly documented. In summary, thanks. But, no thanks. With all those problems I did not even bother checking the speed. -- Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E GeForce7300GT Xubuntu Gutsy ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brandon Van Every wrote: Waf is the offering of a fellow who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. http://code.google.com/p/waf/ A quick eval of waf Ok, waf sucks. It can't demonstrate anything compelling about OO build systems in practice. But does it say anything about OO build systems in theory? Does the author have a good idea? Meanwhile I just keep expanding my search radius, asking various build system communities the OO question. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brandon Van Every wrote: Waf is the offering of a fellow who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. http://code.google.com/p/waf/ A quick eval of waf Ok, waf sucks. It can't demonstrate anything compelling about OO build systems in practice. But does it say anything about OO build systems in theory? Does the author have a good idea? Meanwhile I just keep expanding my search radius, asking various build system communities the OO question. What's the purpose ? CMake is kind-of going OO. Alex ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
Alexander Neundorf wrote: What's the purpose ? CMake is kind-of going OO. Meaning *what*, exactly? Do you mean that a) say FILE( READ ... ) will change to: File.read() or x.read() where x is a file object? and LIST( APPEND ... ) will be just a.append(x) or a += x b) you'll be able to do: class A attr_accessor :x def f( x ) @x = x + 5 end end class B A def t(); end end a = A.new a.x a.f a.x = 5 b = B.new b.x b.f b.t c) you'll have 'virtual' macros? class A def f( x ); end end class B A def f( x ) super end end a = A.new b = B.new b.f(1) # calls B::f, which in turn can call A::f, too. a.f(1) # calls A::f d) ...other... I consider a) to c) the cornerstone of OO. b and c cannot be done in cmake. a) can (only partially) be done and with an uglier syntax. -- Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E GeForce7300GT Xubuntu Gutsy ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
On Sunday 16 December 2007, you wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: What's the purpose ? CMake is kind-of going OO. Meaning *what*, exactly? That the cmake objects (source files, targets, directories) are not only influenced by global variables, but they have their own encapsulated set of properties, which takes presedence over the global variables. Alex ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
[CMake] Waf build tool
On Dec 15, 2007 1:55 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 12:41 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are some vocal complainers about the language, but I suspect there is a silent majority that really don't care, CMake is a self-selecting community. Those that really care, leave. I'd like to know where they went, and what competing products they're working on. I've subscribed to the SCons mailing list. The SCons community has people who got fed up with it and started their own RD. It seems that the SCons Python 1.5 limitation is a serious one, as developers generally only know Python = 2.2. Waf is the offering of a fellow who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. http://code.google.com/p/waf/ A recent comment of his, regarding KDE's use of CMake: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus=15659 * Cmake scripts are easily readable from IDEs (kdevelop); in reality parsing-writing Cmake scripts from ides is much more difficult than using object-oriented apis and mapping to xml when needed Without evaluating the veracity of his claim, or even evaluating Waf at all, this says something important to me. It says that not everybody believes in a make paradigm for a build system. I think the generational logic is understandable. In college I did makefiles; after college I learned IMake and Autoconf. That's what people did in the early 1990s. This is now the late 2000s. I've completely ignored the XML universe. Something about all those angle brackets just gives me a rash. But let's say I was just getting out of college right now, and everything was new and squeaky clean to me. Would I be trying to do everything with XML? Would I see OO as fundamental, of course! it's easier to do a build system that way? Would I see Make as fundamentally old fashioned? Would I have little experience with declarative systems? Little incentive to work with build tools based on old-fangled paradigms? Most importantly: would my prejudices cause me to use, or even develop, OO build tools that actually get real work done? Whether coupled to an OO IDE or not. The proof is in the pudding. If there are OO build systems that are having any success, we should pay attention to why. We should be wary of generational biases of what a build system should or shouldn't look like. Do we really know better than everybody else? Does our extensive engineering experience make us more efficient, productive, and competitive? Or does it (also) make us blind to the technology around the corner? I've seen new generations sweep old generations away. As one young buck put it in that thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus=15659 I dunno the particular situation, but for me using CMake sounds like they didn't make the step out of the last decade :-) Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] Waf build tool
On Saturday 15 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 1:55 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 12:41 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are some vocal complainers about the language, but I suspect there is a silent majority that really don't care, CMake is a self-selecting community. Those that really care, leave. I'd like to know where they went, and what competing products they're working on. I've subscribed to the SCons mailing list. The SCons community has people who got fed up with it and started their own RD. It seems that the SCons Python 1.5 limitation is a serious one, as developers generally only know Python = 2.2. Waf is the offering of a fellow who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. http://code.google.com/p/waf/ When KDE tried to switch to scons, many changes had to be made to scons, and this modified version is waf. A recent comment of his, regarding KDE's use of CMake: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus =15659 * Cmake scripts are easily readable from IDEs (kdevelop); in reality parsing-writing Cmake scripts Parsing/writing cmake scripts should not be done by IDEs, except for syntax highlighting and autocompletion. I don't see a problem there. ... Most importantly: would my prejudices cause me to use, or even develop, OO build tools that actually get real work done? Whether coupled to an OO IDE or not. The proof is in the pudding. If there are OO build systems that are having any success, we should pay attention to why. We should be wary of generational biases of what a build system should or shouldn't look like. Do we really know better than everybody else? Does our extensive engineering experience make us more efficient, productive, and competitive? Or does it (also) make us blind to the technology around the corner? I've seen new generations sweep old generations away. With the property stuff cmake is already becoming more OO. As one young buck put it in that thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus =15659 I dunno the particular situation, but for me using CMake sounds like they didn't make the step out of the last decade :-) Feel free to write an ant or whatever generator for cmake :-) Alex P.S. if you would take 50% of the time you use to post here to write patches for cmake instead, much of what you would like to have could already be implemented ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
