On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:03 AM, <tobias.hun...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Gero! > > The "best build system" is a hottly debated topic in the C/C++ world:-) > There are > lots of competing ways to do things, each with their benefits and set of > (mis-)features. >
It's just that the rest of you do not appreciate the true genius of my private build system! After I release it for you to see, you will all bow down! And when you stop laughing yourself sick, you will stand up again. :-)) Seriously: Each developer seems to have one or two build systems that they really like, and others that they can work with. Almost every IDE has a way to invoke an external build system. The problem with supporting multiple build systems is to keep the IDE's view of the project in sync with the build system. When I add a file in the project browser, that needs to get added to the file (Makefile, CMakefile, .pro,) used by the build system. For build systems like CMake and QMake, there are very strong conventions for how to do this. Also for later versions of Microsoft nmake. I don't know about XCode project files. Ironically, UNIX make is the hardest one to handle. There are *hundreds* of different conventions about how to use the makefile variables. Some are pretty simple. Some (e.g. autoconf) involve a whole lot of poorly documented variables. Some (the EROS and Coyotos Makefiles) involve a truly depressing amount of "magic" to get the build to happen correctly. It would be easy for QtCreator to say "here is how *I* build makefiles, and I will maintain that convention properly". It might be manageable to create a QtCreator plugin that knows the really common conventions (e.g. autoconf). It is NOT practical for QtCreator to remain synchronized with makefiles in general. So the real problem isn't "what is my favorite build system". It is "how do I keep my IDE synchronized with my build system?" While there are major limitations in QMake that annoy me, the idea that the IDE may need to have a very close relationship with the build tool seems to work well in practice. Given the state of the QMake documentation, I can't tell yet whether QMake just isn't good enough or whether I don't understand it well enough. >From other postings, I understand that there is active discussion about a future XML-based build system for QtCreator. What list should I join to be involved in that discussion? Jonathan
_______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
