[CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

[Brandon Van Every]

On Dec 14, 2007 3:27 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <rodolfo at rodsoft.org> wrote:
> It is clear that
> CMake won't support Lua (and it's right to do so, because of backwards
> compatibility), so a fork is the only viable option.

I'm not willing to concede the clarity.  As I just wrote, "backwards
compatibility" is an issue to solve, not a dealbreaker.  As for labor,
there's already a quorum of people interested in the issue, and CMake
forks have been threatened before.  I'd like to see people identify
actual strategic needs - things that matter for the next 5..10 years.
I'd like to see people consider the validity of numerous complaints
about the CMake language, before shutting down conversation about it.
I'd like to see people try the CMake scoping and function improvements
that were recently made in CVS.  I'd like to see people examine other
build systems and return with tangibles, i.e. "this is clearly better"
rather than "I think it would be better."

I agree that Kitware hasn't been persuaded of the value of using a 3rd
party open source language.  But why should we stop investigating at
their say-so?


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every