4 ms·
If the alternative you are hinting at is CMake, I can't really agree with you. I tried it recently and was shocked at how awful the syntax and usability was.
by gerbilly 7y ago
If the alternative you are hinting at is CMake, I can't really agree with you.
I tried it recently and was shocked at how awful the syntax and usability was.
It's begging for a tool to auto-detect your dependencies from source. I was trying to port an existing project to it and I gave up when I realised that I'd have to manually create about 30 CMakeList.txt files or whatever they call them.
Meanwhile during the same weekend, autoconf allowed me to build gcc from source with three commands. I know I know, I'm not supposed to like autoconf, and the orthodoxy is that it is garbage ...
It seems every generation ignores the previous generation's tools and invents worse ones to replace them.
If this continues we'll soon go back to banging rocks and sticks together.
- adgasf 7y agoI am definitely not hinting at CMake! Better options are Bazel, Buck and Please. Please is the most light-weight option.
- jeltz 7y agoTake a look at Ninja and Bazel. I ahree with you that CMake is worse than autoconf but I would argue that the tools which came after CMake are better than CMake and autoconf. So while there certainly are regressions not every new generation is worse than the previous.
- adgasf 7y agoNinja is an optimized back-end for other build-systems (including but not limited to CMake). It's not really intended to be used directly.