[CMake] improve the CMake language?

Gonzalo Garramuño ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar
Mon Nov 5 17:55:26 EST 2007


Ken Martin wrote:
> I have looked at incorporating Lua into CMake as an alternate language.

Interesting.  You didn't by any chance used swig to wrap it?

I admit I would be curious to see that fork of cmake to study the changes.

Using swig right now would be the best approach, as with just a few swig 
rules (if any) it would allow any user to choose whatever language he 
feels like using.

Currently, swig supports all languages mentioned in this thread so far 
and it works pretty well for projects like cmake where its .h files keep 
changing.

Eventually one scripting language could end up becoming massively more 
popular and be adopted as a "standard" for cmake.  But I'm betting in 
the future that won't matter, as several vendors are developing tools or 
frameworks to offer data interchange across the major scripting languages.

--

For those that don't know Lua, Lua has a very similar syntax to non-OO 
ruby albeit parenthesis are required.  It is also very fast, small and, 
just like TCL, thread safe and built for embedding (python and ruby 
still struggle with threads).  LuaJIT is probably one of the fastest JIT 
compilers for a dynamic language under any platform.
Lua's uglyness is its OO support and syntax, which is closer to OO 
Javascript or Perl's.

--

P.S. Disclosure: I am swig's ruby maintainer.


-- 
Gonzalo Garramuño
ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar

AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
GeForce7300GT
Kubuntu Edgy


More information about the CMake mailing list