[CMake] Re: escaping!

[Andrew Roark]

> > I think the point the other poster in this thread and the posters
> > in the Lua discussions are making is that CMake is a good meta
> > build 
 system, not clunky as you hint at, but that the _CMake script language_
> > is clunky and less powerful than a real language.
> 
> Clunky, fine.  "Less powerful" with respect to build systems, has yet
> to be proven.  Until someone proves it, with a concrete example,
> Kitware will never be convinced that any "better" language is needed.
> So I'm saying, quit talking about how Lua or some other language is
> supposed to be better, and find something that proves it would be
> better.

I'm really not the guy to be discussing it with. I'm just the guy who says each tool has a purpose, and CMake is a tool with a perfectly reasonable purpose that it's quite good at.

The CMake language as a device for driving CMake is a fairly reasonable language for the relatively limited scope of work required for a build system.

Could a "real" language drive CMake more cleanly and more powerfully? Could this language produce more modular, faster to develop, higher quality make scripts with better abstractions? Probably. But is there a sufficiently large gap between CMake as it works now, and what it could be, to reach a critical mass of interest? Nah, probably not. Ergo, things will stay as they are.

And Brandon, just for the record, I don't really care either way.

Andrew





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping