[CMake] Gyp VS CMake

[Nicolas Desprès]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Eric Noulard <eric.noulard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/17 Felipe Ferreri Tonello <felipe.tonello at totvs.com.br>:
>> On Thursday 17 February 2011 06:15:34 Nicolas Desprès wrote:
>>>
>>> That being said, I feel sad to see other CMake's like projects started
>>> instead of contributing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>> I'm with you. I don't know why there are companies or people who starts other
>> open source projects instead of improving some other that do the same thing.
>> It's exaclty like Nokia that prefer to create QtCreator instead of improving
>> KDevelop, which is a gread developer tool.
>
> I like CMake very much, but I'm glad there are other tools to do the
> same task out
> there even new ones.
>
> Diversity is good because it brings you choice.
> What would be Open Source without the freedom of choice?
>
> I'd like to be able to switch from KDE to Gnome to XFCE to
> Enlightment.... from time
> to time. I may even provide patch to everyone of them.
>
> Moreover if you can afford the freedom to "do it your own way", why
> wouldn't you do it ?
>

I share your opinion: diversity is important, else mandatory.

> That said companies have their own marketing view which may be far away from
> my point of view.
> E.g. from my side  when you say
> "Nokia that prefer to create QtCreator instead of improving KDevelop"
> I would answer that "create QtCreator" does not prevent from
> "improving KDevelop".
> Both project can benefit from one another.
> From the Nokia side I doubt it but I honestly don't know.
>

For the KDevelop VS QtCreator choice, I think it is a question of
dependence. QtCreator relies on Qt only instead of KDE+Qt, which is
important from Nokia point of view.

But we are going off topic. The main point in my post was to trigger
discussion about how we could improve CMake, so that Gyp's
developers/users could use it.

-- 
Nicolas Desprès