Francesco Montorsi wrote:
> shortly a new <python> tag will be added to bakefile. It will make
> possible to embed directly python code in the .bkl files. Otherwise you
> can already code function utilities etc in a separed python file (though
> AFAIK you cannot declare targets from them).
I see, i wonder why this is needed, reading your opinions down here ;-)
>
>> But maybe i am just
>> missing the concept, which would explain why XML was/is just the best choice.
> XML does not require the user to learn a new syntax if he knows XML.
That XML syntax is simple yes, but what you write with it can be really complex.
No one will understand the XML bakfile, because its syntax is so simple :-)
>
> The real logic behind the XML choice is: the build system should not be
> a program but rather an elegant description file which describes what
> should be built and how. Stop. You don't want e.g. iterative loops in
> build files, nor you should need a lot of conditionals.
The complexity of the bakefiles and cmake files does not come from defining
some *.cpp/*.h files to form a library,
its all the detection of external libraries and so on which makes it
complicated.
>
> It's not weird to me. It's clear. In C++ you'd write:
>
> if (FORMAT=='msvc' or FORMAT=='mingw' or FORMAT=='gnu' or
> FORMAT=='autoconf') {
> command( cd $(__cmddir) && $(__cmdstr) );
> }
>
> is it so different ?
No of course not, but i meant that such things are better written in python
right away. I understand that one needs
some sort of setup/definition, but this here is forcing extra information into
XML (since it does not have "if" etc. ),
and use python to parse that string and make sense of it. To me this is misuse
of XML for a purpose that does not fit.
XML is a static thing.
They could have as well taken some pleasant python naming for hashes/variables
and reach the same clarity without
problem, and at the same time have all the flexibility of a programming
language if need to.
This is what i like so much about the "premake" solution, it just is plain lua,
with some added functions to make it a
makefile generator. In principle that is what bakefile and cmake do, but they
invented new languages to do it.
Here some XSL stuff i wrote for transforming docbook, same story :-) I must be
old fashioned, not understanding why all
needs to be XML these days.
<xsl:for-each select="relation">
<A HREF="#T_{.}" ><xsl:value-of select="."/></A>
<BR/>
</xsl:for-each>
But hey nothing that can be done about it, but i hope premake will win
eventually :-)
>
> And I think it's much better than CMake which forces you to repeat the
> condition in the closing token of the IF. Much more redundant.
Yes horrible syntax too. Often very unclear. I don't like Cmake that much
either.
I just use what i most likely will be able to understand without to much
effort. Which comes mainly down to
documentation, support, user base etc.
But if all wxWidgets related stuff will be bakefile in the future, i will be on
an island (already a bit), i happily switch.
>> Yes, but it is also confusing to choose ;-)
> I'm convinced chaos is part of Open Source. That's the drawback ;)
Its almost brute force, or is it trial and error, for sure it can not be
stopped :-)
Klaas
--
Unclassified
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Wxart2d-users_dev mailing list
Wxart2d-users_dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxart2d-users_dev
