Robert Dailey a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Like a ... python front end ?
Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly
unreadable as a scripting language...
I would agree with you in that CMake isn't perfect and it does have a
lot of issues that I've seen in the few hours I've spent learning it.
It has some issues with portability and it also is pretty
unreadable/verbose in some cases. However, considering alternatives I
would say it could be worse. Boost.Build (BJam) is absolutely one of
the most unreadable languages I've seen. I refuse to use it just
because of that fact. I also have yet to find another build system
that generates visual studio project files like CMake does. It would
be nice to see alternatives for comparison though.
Sure, I guess we are all here because CMake is a very powerful suite,
with tons of functionalities and useful abstractions. But I challenge
anyone to seriously tell me that he/she enjoys writing CMake script. As
soon as you don't have to only set a bunch of variables and call a few
built-in macros any more, you get crazy. Do a bit of string processing,
you get crazy. Write/call your own functions and macros, with argument
passing and returning, you get crazy.
To me, that is definitely THE weakest point of CMake, along with its
fairly arnarchic documentation.
I would be very interested by others' testimonies.
Kudos anyway to the CMake team!
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
