[CMake] Waf build tool

Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-work at gmx.net
Sat Dec 15 15:14:40 EST 2007


On Saturday 15 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 1:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 2007 12:41 PM, Bill Hoffman <bill.hoffman at kitware.com> wrote:
> > > There are some vocal
> > > complainers about the language, but I suspect there is a silent
> > > majority that really don't care,
> >
> > CMake is a self-selecting community.  Those that really care, leave.
> > I'd like to know where they went, and what competing products they're
> > working on.
>
> I've subscribed to the SCons mailing list.  The SCons community has
> people who got fed up with it and started their own R&D.  It seems
> that the SCons Python 1.5 limitation is a serious one, as developers
> generally only know Python >= 2.2.  Waf is the offering of a fellow
> who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason.
> http://code.google.com/p/waf/

When KDE tried to switch to scons, many changes had to be made to scons, and 
this modified version is waf.

> A recent comment of his, regarding KDE's use of CMake:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus
>=15659 "* Cmake scripts are easily readable from IDEs (kdevelop); in reality
> parsing-writing Cmake scripts

Parsing/writing cmake scripts should not be done by IDEs, except for syntax 
highlighting and autocompletion. I don't see a problem there.

...
> Most importantly: would my prejudices cause me to use, or even
> develop, OO build tools that actually get real work done?  Whether
> coupled to an OO IDE or not.  The proof is in the pudding.  If there
> are OO build systems that are having any success, we should pay
> attention to why.  We should be wary of generational biases of what a
> build system "should" or "shouldn't" look like.  Do we really know
> better than everybody else?  Does our extensive engineering experience
> make us more efficient, productive, and competitive?  Or does it
> (also) make us blind to the technology around the corner?  I've seen
> new generations sweep old generations away.

With the property stuff cmake is already becoming more OO.

> As one young buck put it in that thread:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.user/15656/focus
>=15659 "I dunno the particular situation, but for me using CMake sounds like
> they didn't make the step out of the last decade :-)"

Feel free to write an ant or whatever generator for cmake :-)

Alex

P.S. if you would take 50% of the time you use to post here to write patches 
for cmake instead, much of what you would like to have could already be 
implemented


More information about the CMake mailing list