[CMake] OO and/or IDEs

[Brandon Van Every]

On Dec 17, 2007 11:51 PM, Alan W. Irwin <irwin at beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote:
> On 2007-12-17 23:02-0500 Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
> > I guess you have no fear of a Disruptive Technology biting you in the ass.
>
> That is correct.  Disruptive technology by definition is overwhelmingly
> superior,

I'm not sure you read the Wikipedia link I provided.  See the
description of "low-end disruption."  That corresponds to all those
guys out there rolling up things like Waf and Premake.  Things we
laugh at now, but may not be laughing at later.  Some of those low-end
things like JRake are even getting traction.  There's a constellation
of blog entries about them.  It performs significant work despite not
having 51 person-years into it.

> But right now, I am pretty satisfied with CMake and cannot imagine
> when the next build-system revolution will strike.

Whereas I can, and have been providing you with articles about it from
the Java universe.

> Anyhow, changing your strategy to deal with disruptive technological changes
> is a waste of time at best; by definition disruptive technology changes are
> extremely hard to predict

They're even harder to predict if you're unwilling to pay attention to
competitors and notice the facts on the ground.

> OTOH, discussing possible incremental changes to CMake such as improved
> regex is well worthwhile because of better service to users

Not much to discuss.  It's already to the point of action.  :-)  I
don't have anything against "low hanging fruit."  Despite Bill's
misgivings about CMake "competing with Python / Ruby / Perl," beefing
up CMake with PCRE and a few more string processing routines is an
obvious and easy improvement to the product.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every