[CMake] Gyp VS CMake

[j s]

Hello,

Responses inline to 1 and 2 below:

Thanks,

Juan


On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Michael Wild <themiwi at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/18/2011 04:48 PM, j s wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with another build system.  Not all build systems
> fit
> > everyone needs, much like subversion and git being suitable for different
> > development styles.
> >
> > When I have the time, I will start developing my own build system.  It
> will
> > have the following proposed features.
> >
>
> Just my thoughts below, giving some reasons I think CMake is the way it is.
>
> > 1. Dependency generation by the compiler, so that the include generator
> > understands the c-preprocessor.
>
> Well, cl.exe for one doesn't do this trick. This means, you'll have to
> put it in your build system, and once you've done that, why should you
> use the compiler then? Especially, since you'll want to be consistent
> across platforms.
>
>
cl.exe does this trick

cl.exe /showincludes

http://www.conifersystems.com/2008/10/09/dependencies-from-showincludes/



>
>
> 2. Tcl (or other) scripting language, which has clearly defined variable
> > scoping rules and well understood semantics.
>
> There are many pros for this idea, but a very important con: People will
> use it as a general purpose programming language (see what often happens
> to SCons projects). Even CMake has this problem to a lesser extent (IMHO
> mainly because it's a PITA to program ;-)). But I think some people at
> Kitware are/were experimenting with Python bindings...
>
>
This brings up a new requirement:

5.  Clear delineation when things are done at configuration time, and things
are done at build time.



>
>
> 3. Ability to generate object files and use the same ones in multiple
> > contexts.
>
> It's very easy to shoot yourself in the foot with that. Different uses
> might require different compiler flags on different platforms.
>
> > 4. Ninja generator or built in backend instead of per platform native
> > backends.
>
> I also was wishing for some "native" generator for CMake recently...
>
> >
> > I've gotten the impression from the Cmake mailing list the first 3 are
> not
> > being planned for CMake.
> >
> > Juan
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20110218/b9210951/attachment.htm>