On Wednesday 03 December 2008 01:31:20 am Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:22 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 22:28 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote:
> >> I would add:
> >>
> >> * do not start new projects using autotools as far as possible
> >
> > I would recommend you to stop spreading FUD.
>
> What FUD?
>
> There's an alternative which is:
> * easier to learn,
> * more portable,
> * more backwards-compatible (with its own previous versions),
> * faster,
> * generating nicer makefiles (progress percentages, color output),
> * designed in a better way (information is kept in central places instead
> of being copied into hundreds of projects),
> * used by more and more software, including big projects like KDE 4.
>
> It's called CMake.
See, all FUD, you simply are spraying hatred against something you don't
understand or don't want to understand.
To me, cmake is
* not easier to learn, just different
Learning a new thing is always different. He's not telling you it's easier for
*you* to learn something new than something *you* already know, but that it's
easier for someone unfamiliar with autotools nor CMake to learn CMake than
autotools.
* non-portable/inflexible.
"FUD! FUD!"
* overladden with non-helpful gimmicks like progress percentages and
color output
Agreed, but it's not like they get in the way.
* a crack ridden design (using a central database), reinvention of
imake, comprising it's design flaws.
Reinvention of build-system-tools-in-general. Like a new version of autotools
(they don't pretend to be backwards compatible).
* a kde proprietary tool.
Uh, what?
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>