On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc <cmake@cmake.org> wrote: > I agree that JSON looks better. I have no fetish about XML and I could be > convinced on just about anything in the choice of the IR. The only important > point is that it SHOULD EXIST and be well defined. Hooking all the > generators straight into the script interpreter is not good.
Are you saying that cmake should switch from being imperative to being declarative? That's really quite a large change. > I don’t quite understand resistance toward MS tech. Windows resides on +80% > of PCs in the world, CMake already has VS and NMake generators… if there > existed multiple input languages, I do not understand why one of them > couldn’t be a native Windows script language. It's a free world, so if CMake was turned into a library or a JSON interface, of course you could write a binding in any language you choose. Those of us who remember Microsoft's past behavior (e.g. there was a great training presentation from Microsoft about how Microsoft evangelists should not consider themselves friends of developers, but rather remember that their goal was always to drive adoption of Microsoft tools, regardless of whether it was in the best interest of developers) may react suspiciously to any development that might lead to a Microsoft language being the preferred front end to a cross-platform tool. - Dan -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake
