On May 29, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Adam Strzelecki <o...@java.pl> wrote: > Putting my 2¢ in, Qmake is IMHO good enough. Qbs is kind of vaporware, sparse > documentation, needs Qmake to build (woot?!). > > Altogether it sounds like a clinch, we don't want to extent Qmake with ninja > or anything, because there comes Qbs. But Qbs isn't really there, because one > needs lot of work to make it more less feature equal to CMake. So we are back > to Qmake, huh.
Qbs has by definition more features than cmake because it is a make tool. Neither cmake nor qmake build anything, they just generate makefiles or project files. In that respect qmake and cmake are quite alike. Qbs is a full-featured build tool: it takes care of generating the DAG *and* executing it. It’s like qmake and ninja in one. In the long run I think Qt either need Qbs as the default build system, or ninja support in qmake. Ninja makes all the difference when building llvm. On a modern system I can get null llvm rebuild times on the order of 100ms with ninja, and under a second with a single changed .cpp file - and that’s a big project. The 1 second single-file rebuilds on fairly small make-based projects (like examples bundled with Qt) are really bad. With cmake+ninja, a single changed .cpp rebuild of a small Qt example on OS X takes about 250ms. Cheers, Kuba _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
