Comments on: A Brief History of Build Systems #1: Introduction http://codingexperiments.com/a-brief-history-of-build-systems-1-introduction/ $ sudo make money Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:06:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: i80and http://codingexperiments.com/a-brief-history-of-build-systems-1-introduction/comment-page-1/#comment-708 i80and Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:27:44 +0000 http://codingexperiments.com/?p=493#comment-708 Sorry for the late response.<br><br>CMake is indeed a superb build system, and to be honest it sort of still wages war in my head against SCons.<br><br>I do agree that having a full scripting language available can easily lead to convoluted messes that cause more problems than they solve. However, in some ways, it is more convenient. For one, it's easier to learn in one sense (although harder in another) as an existing development language is used. For another, using a full language, you can do more. As with anything else, of course, this can be both a gift and a curse.<br><br>SCons and CMake have two different philosophies as to the role of a build system, and neither has won as the succeeder to autoconf quite yet.<br><br>And thanks; if I have any problems with CMake, I may follow one of those routes. Sorry for the late response.

CMake is indeed a superb build system, and to be honest it sort of still wages war in my head against SCons.

I do agree that having a full scripting language available can easily lead to convoluted messes that cause more problems than they solve. However, in some ways, it is more convenient. For one, it's easier to learn in one sense (although harder in another) as an existing development language is used. For another, using a full language, you can do more. As with anything else, of course, this can be both a gift and a curse.

SCons and CMake have two different philosophies as to the role of a build system, and neither has won as the succeeder to autoconf quite yet.

And thanks; if I have any problems with CMake, I may follow one of those routes.

]]> By: i80and http://codingexperiments.com/a-brief-history-of-build-systems-1-introduction/comment-page-1/#comment-399 i80and Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:27:44 +0000 http://codingexperiments.com/?p=493#comment-399 Sorry for the late response.<br><br>CMake is indeed a superb build system, and to be honest it sort of still wages war in my head against SCons.<br><br>I do agree that having a full scripting language available can easily lead to convoluted messes that cause more problems than they solve. However, in some ways, it is more convenient. For one, it's easier to learn in one sense (although harder in another) as an existing development language is used. For another, using a full language, you can do more. As with anything else, of course, this can be both a gift and a curse.<br><br>SCons and CMake have two different philosophies as to the role of a build system, and neither has won as the succeeder to autoconf quite yet.<br><br>And thanks; if I have any problems with CMake, I may follow one of those routes. Sorry for the late response.

CMake is indeed a superb build system, and to be honest it sort of still wages war in my head against SCons.

I do agree that having a full scripting language available can easily lead to convoluted messes that cause more problems than they solve. However, in some ways, it is more convenient. For one, it's easier to learn in one sense (although harder in another) as an existing development language is used. For another, using a full language, you can do more. As with anything else, of course, this can be both a gift and a curse.

SCons and CMake have two different philosophies as to the role of a build system, and neither has won as the succeeder to autoconf quite yet.

And thanks; if I have any problems with CMake, I may follow one of those routes.

]]> By: Alex http://codingexperiments.com/a-brief-history-of-build-systems-1-introduction/comment-page-1/#comment-707 Alex Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:40:30 +0000 http://codingexperiments.com/?p=493#comment-707 I think that having a "very powerful scripting language" available in the buildsystem is actually no advantage, but can instead lead to problems. Instead of relatively simple build scripts you will end up with more or less sophisticated Python programs. I doubt that this is something desirable for build scripts. Consider this.<br><br>It would be really nice if we (KDE & Gnome) would agree on a common buildsystem. And, completely unbiased, CMake is of course the obvious choice ;-)<br><br>If you want to give CMake a try, I'm sure you will get a lot of support, there's the mailing list, I'll try my best, and maybe also the CMake developers would be interested.<br><br>Alex, the KDE buildsystem guy<br><br>If you want, drop me a mail (neundorf AT kde DOT org) I think that having a “very powerful scripting language” available in the buildsystem is actually no advantage, but can instead lead to problems. Instead of relatively simple build scripts you will end up with more or less sophisticated Python programs. I doubt that this is something desirable for build scripts. Consider this.

It would be really nice if we (KDE & Gnome) would agree on a common buildsystem. And, completely unbiased, CMake is of course the obvious choice ;-)

If you want to give CMake a try, I'm sure you will get a lot of support, there's the mailing list, I'll try my best, and maybe also the CMake developers would be interested.

Alex, the KDE buildsystem guy

If you want, drop me a mail (neundorf AT kde DOT org)

]]> By: Alex http://codingexperiments.com/a-brief-history-of-build-systems-1-introduction/comment-page-1/#comment-398 Alex Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:40:30 +0000 http://codingexperiments.com/?p=493#comment-398 I think that having a "very powerful scripting language" available in the buildsystem is actually no advantage, but can instead lead to problems. Instead of relatively simple build scripts you will end up with more or less sophisticated Python programs. I doubt that this is something desirable for build scripts. Consider this.<br><br>It would be really nice if we (KDE & Gnome) would agree on a common buildsystem. And, completely unbiased, CMake is of course the obvious choice ;-)<br><br>If you want to give CMake a try, I'm sure you will get a lot of support, there's the mailing list, I'll try my best, and maybe also the CMake developers would be interested.<br><br>Alex, the KDE buildsystem guy<br><br>If you want, drop me a mail (neundorf AT kde DOT org) I think that having a “very powerful scripting language” available in the buildsystem is actually no advantage, but can instead lead to problems. Instead of relatively simple build scripts you will end up with more or less sophisticated Python programs. I doubt that this is something desirable for build scripts. Consider this.

It would be really nice if we (KDE & Gnome) would agree on a common buildsystem. And, completely unbiased, CMake is of course the obvious choice ;-)

If you want to give CMake a try, I'm sure you will get a lot of support, there's the mailing list, I'll try my best, and maybe also the CMake developers would be interested.

Alex, the KDE buildsystem guy

If you want, drop me a mail (neundorf AT kde DOT org)

]]>