4 ms·
> Also, cmake has become the de facto solution for open source libraries, not sure why they would select something else It is definitely not the de facto solut
by weberc2 7y ago
> Also, cmake has become the de facto solution for open source libraries, not sure why they would select something else
It is definitely not the de facto solution for open source. After using CMake as a C++ developer, I will never use CMake again. I simply don't have time to write a program in a slow, stringly-typed, ad hoc DSL just to build my actual program.
- renox 7y agoAt work, we use cmake; i've never seen a technology with so little 'traction'; I know one guy who is good with cmake all the other (including me) avoid touching this thing as much as possible! Sigh, I remember debugging a complex makefile generation issue (it took me 3 days, two guys before me failed) and it didn't make me hate the make tool, I just wished it had better tracing/debugging but cmake that's a different story..
- jcelerier 7y ago> It is definitely not the de facto solution for open source. After using CMake as a C++ developer, I will never use CMake again. most projects are using CMake nowadays : https://www.jetbrains.com/research/devecosystem-2018/cpp/ https://www.jetbrains.com/research/devecosystem-2018/cpp/
- weberc2 7y agoMost _C++_ projects are using CMake, but it has virtually no adoption among other mainstream languages, and given most open source is not C++, CMake definitely doesn't have any strong share of the open source market.
- dgellow 7y agoMy comment was about Qt, which is a C++ project. Of course CMake doesn’t have any market share outside of C++, but in the C++ world it has become the main build tool for open source projects. Even Microsoft is now spending their time supporting CMake via both Visual Studio and vcpkg.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]