[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X?



On Wednesday 03 December 2008 02:21:10 am Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 01:36 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 01:31:20 am Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > To me, cmake is
> > > * not easier to learn, just different
> >
> > Learning a new thing is always different. He's not telling you it's
> > easier for *you* to learn something new than something *you* already
> > know, but that it's easier for someone unfamiliar with autotools nor
> > CMake to learn CMake than autotools.
>
> I would agree to "it's very simple to get into cmake for trivial cases".
>
> For slightly non trivial cases, the autotools and cmake are more or less
> on par wrt. difficulties.
>
> For complex cases, the flexibility the autotools provide pay off very
> soon. On the downside, it's very easy to shoot yourselves into the foot
> with them.
>
> > > * non-portable/inflexible.
> >
> > "FUD! FUD!"
>
> Absolutely not: Try to bring cmake to a new OS and you'll experience the
> difference.

What "new OS" has come out in the past 5 years or so that CMake doesn't 
already support?

> > > * a crack ridden design (using a central database), reinvention of
> > > imake, comprising it's design flaws.
> >
> > Reinvention of build-system-tools-in-general. Like a new version of
> > autotools (they don't pretend to be backwards compatible).
>
> The autotools do not apply a central data base, they keep
> "configuration" and "installation" as separate jobs. cmake lumps them
> together.
>
> It's a different approach.

Saves resources on koji, if nothing less.

Regards,
-- 
Conrad Meyer <konrad tylerc org>



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]