[CMake] OO and/or IDEs

[Brandon Van Every]

On Dec 17, 2007 10:35 PM, Alan W. Irwin <irwin at beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote:
> people and projects are strongly voting with their feet
> despite (and this is an extremely important consideration) virtually
> everybody absolutely hating to change build systems.

Here, I think it's more important to concentrate on the lifecycle of
build systems, rather than people's emotions about them.  The vast
majority of software developers don't like build systems no matter
what stage of the lifecycle they're at.  Most engineers want the build
to go away.  They don't think it's real code, they think it's pure
overhead.  They resent having to maintain it.  Only when the
complexity of their business gets to a certain point, and the
inevitable relationship between their build system and their
profitability emerges, do they grudgingly take steps to address it.
Then after cutting off their fingers some more with half-measures,
they grudgingly hire a dedicated build engineer.

If a software project continues to grow in complexity and
requirements, the build dies.  Then there's a (forced) opportunity to
replace it with something better.  As builds die, engineers look at
the available products and decide what the next build is going to be.
They may choose something incrementally conservative, i.e. CMake over
GNU Automake, which are broadly of the same style.  Or they may choose
something "apparently cutting edge," if they think it may give them a
competitive advantage.  Or if the risk is manageable, i.e. they can
afford to change their minds again, if the new build doesn't work out.

I don't take it as a given that CMake will inherit all GNU Autoconf /
GMake projects.  Especially not indefinitely, as the next 10 years
unfold.  It's important to look at competitors and determine what
engineers think is attractive in a build tool.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every