Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#2Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#3Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#4Whenever I have to work with CMake, I find it useful to adopt a “please sir, may I have another” attitude.
Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#5Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#6Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#7It may be time to update Zawinski's Law to something like:
"Every tool expands until turning complete"
At the point where cmake is fungible with a programming language, why not just write the build system in the one you know?
As with the various markup languages that purport to "simplify" HTML, we're given enough PITA learning curve (how does this doo-hicky do anchor tags, since is right out?) that just writing straight HTML would have sucked less.
/rant
Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#8Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#9Re: Everything you never wanted to know about CMake (redux)
#10All these CMake improvements are the best example of optimising into a local minimum I have ever seen in SWE
I recognize that CMake has done a lot to make people’s lives easier, but it has so many design flaws that the entire design seems almost purposefully user-hostile. I know it’s not hostile on purpose, but it sometimes feels that way.