Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Introduction to Modern CMake

cliutils.gitlab.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 126 posts

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#2

Post by superkuh »

The problem with modern cmake is that it cannot run on older systems. So if you want to use it you end up either static compiling an incredibly hard and tedious depedency tree or have to use some just released OS.

What I want out of a make system isn't bleeding edge features. I want to be able to use it for more than 3 years.

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#3

Post by ridiculous_fish »

superkuh wrote: post #2

The problem with modern cmake is that it cannot run on older systems. So if you want to use it you end up either static compiling an incredibly hard and tedious depedency tree or have to use some just released OS. What I want out of a make system isn't bleeding edge features. I want to be able to use it for more than 3 years.

What systems does modern CMake not support?

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#4

Post by tux1968 »

The recommended compatibility boilerplate for new projects is tedious. There must be a way to include this knowledge in cmake itself rather than requiring every "properly" configured project to get this right:

  cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.1)

  if(${CMAKE_VERSION} VERSION_LESS 3.12)
    cmake_policy(VERSION ${CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION}.${CMAKE_MINOR_VERSION})
  else()
    cmake_policy(VERSION 3.12)
  endif()
This is all before you even start thinking about your own project.

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#5

Post by j1elo »

superkuh wrote: post #2

The problem with modern cmake is that it cannot run on older systems. So if you want to use it you end up either static compiling an incredibly hard and tedious depedency tree or have to use some just released OS. What I want out of a make system isn't bleeding edge features. I want to be able to use it for more than 3 years.

Well, the first page touches briefly on this:

> You should at least install it locally. It's easy (1-2 lines in many cases), and you'll find that 5 minutes of work will save you hundreds of lines and hours of CMakeLists.txt writing

I agree that it's cumbersome wanting to use tools that are not readily available in most commonly used systems. On the other hand, wanting to keep support for old systems that you may only hypothetically want to use shouldn't be limiting your choice of tools (or better versions of a tool). Achieving an easy and straightforward means of installing should be a goal for the tool itself, as it is the case for latest versions of CMake (assuming that phrase about 1-2 lines is true).

I agree that 3 years, or even 5, is an acceptable amount of time to keep using the same version of a tool. I'm currently at CMake 3.5, the one that comes with Ubuntu 16.04

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#7

Post by tonetheman »

mr337 wrote: post #6

This is quite welcoming. I have tried to digest cmake docs and get so lost. Am I the only one that can’t grok cmake docs? Edit: spelling fixes

Yeah cmake docs suck. I dig the concept but figuring out how to use it is/was painful. I have not looked in a while.

It used to be the only chance you had to learn it was a book you could buy.

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#8

Post by baby »

tux1968 wrote: post #4

The recommended compatibility boilerplate for new projects is tedious. There must be a way to include this knowledge in cmake itself rather than requiring every "properly" configured project to get this right: cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.1) if(${CMAKE_VERSION} VERSION_LESS 3.12) cmake_policy(VERSION ${CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION}.${CMAKE_MINOR_VERSION}) else() cmake_policy(VERSION 3.12) endif() This is all before you ev…

This syntax is also uber ugly. I can’t understand why C still hasn’t a proper build system that is either using convention over configuration (like Go or Rust) or something like cmake but with a proper syntax (maybe something in pyhon?)

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#9

Post by bendmorris »

baby wrote: post #8
tux1968 wrote: post #4

The recommended compatibility boilerplate for new projects is tedious. There must be a way to include this knowledge in cmake itself rather than requiring every "properly" configured project to get this right: cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.1) if(${CMAKE_VERSION} VERSION_LESS 3.12) cmake_policy(VERSION ${CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION}.${CMAKE_MINOR_VERSION}) else() cmake_policy(VERSION 3.12) endif() This is all before you ev…

This syntax is also uber ugly. I can’t understand why C still hasn’t a proper build system that is either using convention over configuration (like Go or Rust) or something like cmake but with a proper syntax (maybe something in pyhon?)

Scons (https://scons.org/) is one alternative. The configurations (and Scons itself) are Python.

Re: An Introduction to Modern CMake

#10

Post by Langdal »

baby wrote: post #8
tux1968 wrote: post #4

The recommended compatibility boilerplate for new projects is tedious. There must be a way to include this knowledge in cmake itself rather than requiring every "properly" configured project to get this right: cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.1) if(${CMAKE_VERSION} VERSION_LESS 3.12) cmake_policy(VERSION ${CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION}.${CMAKE_MINOR_VERSION}) else() cmake_policy(VERSION 3.12) endif() This is all before you ev…

This syntax is also uber ugly. I can’t understand why C still hasn’t a proper build system that is either using convention over configuration (like Go or Rust) or something like cmake but with a proper syntax (maybe something in pyhon?)

SCons is a build system for C and C++ (and some other languages) that is configured in Python. I haven't tried it much though.
Post reply on HN