[zeromq-dev] CMake adequacy

[Pieter Hintjens]

Kelly,

Feel free to post a page on the wiki explaining how you use premake. It
would be helpful IMHO.

-Pieter
On 19 Oct 2010 06:05, "Kelly Brock" <Kerby at inocode.com> wrote:
> If you are going to use a build tool just for Window's, I'd argue in favor
> of Premake4. CMake's language is a pain in the ass, even more quirky than
> makefiles and all the autoconf-like stuff it does is basically completely
> unneeded on windows. I wrote premake4 builds for zmq first day I started
> using it, it took about 30 minutes to figure out which files I needed and
> the correct defines, since then it has just been a minor update once due
to
> change from upstream/downstream to push/pull files.
>
> I feel rather strongly about CMake in the negative. I used it, liked its
> abilities but despised the language and missing cross language support. (I
> use C#/Mono for certain parts of my codebase, mostly just tools which need
> windows. CMake doesn't support that.) Premake is just a Lua extension with
> "make" abilities. Lua is a well defined, generic and simple language,
CMake
> script is a mess of make/bash/perl/whatever concepts all mixed up which
are
> archaic and bizarre in comparison.
>
> For a new/clean codebase, CMake is intended to replace autoconf and do a
lot
> more things. Premake is basically the same but it doesn't have much of the
> autoconf code, it's still adding it. CMake uses a god awful language,
> premake is just an extension of lua. CMake does not support much more than
> any language supported by gmake, Premake supports anything you want to add
> and currently supports what CMake does plus C#/Mono, addons exist for D,
Go,
> and other "new" languages.
>
> Maybe the folks you are talking about have a reason for needing a
> complicated god awful build system, zmq doesn't need such a monster. My
> initial premake scripts have worked on Windows, OsX, BSD 5 and latest
Ubuntu
> without issue. And it is under 10 lines of script, subtracting the source
> file list. More importantly, anyone who can program just about any real
> language, can read the code without issue. CMake scripts are quirky
> bastards last time I tried to do anything with them beyond a simple file
> list.
>
> Sorry, I really do feel pretty strongly in the negative on CMake, love the
> idea, HATE the "language" with a serious passion.
>
> KB
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-
>> bounces at lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of Steven McCoy
>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:26 PM
>> To: zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> Subject: [zeromq-dev] CMake adequacy
>>
>> An interesting compromise out of the libjpeg-turbo team, use Autoconf on
>> Unix and CMake on Windows:
>>
>>
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20101015101132.GA
>> 6167%40traged.englab.brq.redhat.com&forum_name=tigervnc-devel
>>
>> --
>> Steve-o
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20101019/6e19dc56/attachment-0001.htm>