[CMake-Promote] simplified vs. fullblown languages

[Andrew Manson]

Hi,

I've just been following this list for any notice of the Cmake book 
being out but i can't help but put in my own comment to this discussion:

Brandon Van Every wrote:
> I don't know if Premake offers compelling advantages for small
> projects, or if it's just perception along the lines of "I already
> know and like Lua or Python or whatever, so I want something that uses
> what I know."  That would make sense for a small project, because
> people are probably not feeling terribly committed to learning
> anything about build systems in order to keep their small projects
> going.  
This is very true for small projects but it also raises a question for 
people who are not familiar with any build system. I'm a college student 
in a pretty good college ( over all ) but i have never been exposed to 
any of the ideas behind a "good" build system. If you can convince 
someone like me, being a blank canvas, with reasonable ease to use cmake 
then you should be able to convince someone who is only looking to 
maintain a small project. Neither of us know about cmake and need to be 
thought about it from the bottom up, not comparing it to other build 
systems. This is why i want the book, presuming that it can teach me 
what i need to know. And i also think that this was the problem with the 
maintainer who chose not to use cmake, he wanted something that was 
built in a language that he knew instead of looking at the merits of 
cmake for what it is ( which includes the simplicity of its syntax ). so 
my thoughts would be to forget anything you know when looking at cmake 
with the goal of learning it, and only compare it to any other system 
when you are proficient enough to maintain a reasonable sized system 
with it.

Just thought I'd add my 2c, sorry if I'm interrupting.
Andrew Manson

p.s. any word on the book? ;)