On Monday 23 February 2009, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Sunday 22 February 2009, Sergey Popov wrote: > > На Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:52:55 +0100 > > > > Alexander Neundorf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for your contructive attitude. > > > What is wrong with using a DSL for a very specific purpose ? > > > > I don't think that cmake's language is a DSL, at least compared to make. > > It's just yet another scripting language, and time used for maintaining > > it could be better spent elsewhere. > > Besides, using an existing general purpose language would allow people > > using the buildsystem to reuse their existing knowledge, not learn new > > language constructs, but only new API. > > Ok, this can be discussed without end. > Just my opinion from maintaining the buildsystem for KDE, which builds > millions of LOC in C++, including code generators and other stuff, > developed by hundreds of developers, natively on Windows with MSVC, on > Apple, and on Linux, Solaris, *BSD: > It is a feature that cmake is no general purpose language. This discourages > people from turning the build scripts into real programs. > This can happen if you have full <chose_your_scripting_language> available, > it's what I saw when we tried to use it in KDE and what I heard from
Should be: "it's what I saw when we tried to use Scons in KDE..." Alex _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
