On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:47:43PM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 30/10/2018 14.30, Edward Welbourne wrote: > > Painful as [CMake's] syntax is (I've begun reviewing the work for > > it), it's there, someone else is supporting it, and the expected > > time to the final demise of qmake does look shorter than our other > > options. > > FWIW, I don't think anyone is praising CMake's syntax. The problem is > finding a *viable* (and that includes *backwards-compatible*) plan to > do something about it. > > If anyone can figure that out, I suspect CMake would be, ah, "highly > receptive" :-). > as i already said to bill (@kitware) in person at the desktop summit in 2011, there is absolutely nothing they can do to make cmake sane without it ceasing to be cmake (and thus losing its ecosystem advantage). now, 7 years later, i can't help but observe that the evidence supports my assertion: while there have been various incremental improvemments (i'll happily admit that a reasonably simple "leaf" project file doesn't look outright atrocious any more), the horrors one faces beyond the basic stuff just aren't going away.
and to be clear, it isn't *just* the syntax (though the fact that there is literally just one syntactical top-level construct - the "function call" with a free-form list of arguments - to express a touring-complete language *really* doesn't help), but also the higher-level project structure and how the language interacts with the backend. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
