Bill Hoffman escreveu:
>
> However, I never intended for the language to be used as a general
> purpose programming tool. There are much better languages out there for
> that type of thing.
I couldn't agree more.
> As to why I regret starting this thread, I think it is a waste of my
> time. Mos
BTW it wouldn't offend me personally if you don't want to respond any
more to this *right now*. You seem harried about other work you feel
you need to get done. I do think "Lua boosters" need to "fan out" to
other build communities and develop more compelling arguments for why
expressive, standar
OK, so here are my thoughts on using CMake as a full scripting language. ...
I think it is feature/mission creep. When I started CMake, I was trying
to make a tool that would make building software with native tools easy
for non build system types of developers (mostly researchers). Usually
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeConfigAndBuild
--
Mike Jackson Senior Research Engineer
Innovative Management & Technology Services
On Dec 15, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
This discussion made me want to kill the monster that jam (and bjam)
became for me. People
On Dec 14, 2007 10:57 PM, Rodolfo Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon Van Every escreveu:
>
> > Most of my concerns about nicety of
> > language are strategic, not tactical.
>
> Let's not forget that cmake is being used by KDE, I think they wouldn't
> change again their build system :)
By ha
On Dec 14, 2007 8:45 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2007 2:38 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It really boils down to this: There is no way we can ever stop
> > > supporting the current cmake
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
> not many, and mine was well, then nobody's gonna follow you. I'd like
> to see the "renegade improvements" energy ploughed back into the CMake
> community somehow, because Kitware is still clearly "the winning team"
> that people are going to follow. Most of my conc
On Dec 14, 2007 6:04 PM, Alan W. Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One of the huge advantages of the CMake scripting that I don't believe has
> been emphasized enough in this discussion is it is a small, very easy to
> learn language. I like it that way, and I believe that quality attracts
> ot
On Dec 14, 2007 4:55 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon Van Every escreveu:
>
> > I'm not willing to concede the clarity. As I just wrote, "backwards
> > compatibility" is an issue to solve, not a dealbreaker. As for labor,
> > there's already a quorum of people inter
On Friday 14 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 2:38 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It really boils down to this: There is no way we can ever stop
> > supporting the current cmake language. It would be a huge break in
> > backwards compatibility.
>
> Gee I
Pau Garcia i Quiles escreveu:
> The most powerful reason not to use Lua is adding Lua effectively forces
> you to know two languages (Lua and CMake script) to use CMake.
You know, you could choose either one, not necessarily both...
Regards,
rod
___
C
On 2007-12-14 18:54-0200 Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
[...]What I mostly miss in CMake is a nicer syntax. I look
to a cmake script and it YELLS at me, with all those upper cased letters.
As a point of information that depends to a certain extent on what style of
CMake scripting you decide to
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
I can't call set(var value) "ugly". I can call it slightly verbose,
as opposed to var=value.
Ugliness is highly subjective. I'm handsome, by the way :)
It is boring precisely because it is *not* error prone. It is a way
of ensuring against errors. If you haven'
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
I'm not willing to concede the clarity. As I just wrote, "backwards
compatibility" is an issue to solve, not a dealbreaker. As for labor,
there's already a quorum of people interested in the issue, and CMake
forks have been threatened before. I'd like to see people
On Dec 14, 2007 3:54 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I look to a cmake script and it YELLS at me, with all
> those upper cased letters.
The newfangled style is to write your commands in lower case. All the
CMake CVS documentation is in this style now. I've started to adop
On Dec 14, 2007 3:27 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is clear that
> CMake won't support Lua (and it's right to do so, because of backwards
> compatibility), so a fork is the only viable option.
I'm not willing to concede the clarity. As I just wrote, "backwards
compati
Mike Jackson escreveu:
Don't forget that "time" is a real barrier, not a perceived one. How
long would you wait for the lua implementation. What other features
would you be willing to give up in order to have lua in x number of
months? Remember Kitware has to pay their employees. They get mone
On Dec 14, 2007 2:38 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It really boils down to this: There is no way we can ever stop
> supporting the current cmake language. It would be a huge break in
> backwards compatibility.
Gee I'm getting paid to migrate a huge build system, from ancient
cru
Joshua Jensen escreveu:
Brandon asked me a short while ago to post a response I had made to a
thread on Sweng-Gamedev. I don't post this to fan flames or to even
form an opinion. It is just my experience in the matter.
What is written in the response is quite like what I feel when using
CMa
On Dec 14, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
Ken showed proof of concept for Lua. "It's too hard" would be a
completely silly argument at this point.
And for what I saw, its implementation could be better (no unpack,
etc...).
Yeah. In fact I saw his response of "well, we prob
On Dec 14, 2007 2:29 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I didn't quite get what you mean here about 'self-selecting nature of
> CMake community' (sorry, English language barrier).
It means, people who like CMake the way it is, tend to stick around.
People who have a serious
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
It really boils down to this: There is no way we can ever stop
supporting the current cmake language. It would be a huge break in
backwards compatibility. The prospect of having two languages forever
is not something I would like to do either. So, we will continue t
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
I never said that it was a bad thing to call cmake during the build we
do it all the time. That was the suggestion from Brandon that started
this whole thread (which I said I would regret :) ). To go one step
further from the suggestion would be to make it easy to use
It really boils down to this: There is no way we can ever stop
supporting the current cmake language. It would be a huge break in
backwards compatibility. The prospect of having two languages forever
is not something I would like to do either. So, we will continue to
improve the CMake lan
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
Certain CMake people want to *say* it was conclusive, so that the
issue will go away, but it wasn't conclusive. In particular, I have
to note the self-selecting nature of the CMake community. If you
stick around and duke it out with CMake, there's a pretty good chanc
25 matches
Mail list logo
