3 ms·
What we could really use is some new declarative syntax that interoperates with existing cmake projects. There is already talk of such a system and even some i
by kortex 6y ago
What we could really use is some new declarative syntax that interoperates with existing cmake projects.
There is already talk of such a system and even some implementations. I am sure many people have thought to themselves "This is so complicated! So much legacy cruft! I bet I could build a way cleaner c/c++ build system! " only to run into all of the complexity of cross platform c++.
I highly doubt there will be a cargo for c/c++, because it simply isn't rust.
https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/19891 https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/19891
https://gist.github.com/stryku/4c69aa510711c9da6705fa4df4545515 https://gist.github.com/stryku/4c69aa510711c9da6705fa4df4545...
- humanrebar 6y agoI like declarative approaches, but there's such a long tail of weird things to support. I'm skeptical something declarative can do the job on its own. Maybe some time after modules become available and then a known quantity.
- kortex 6y agoThe discussions mention this. Any such system would likely need to interoperate with existing building system, and serve as the leaf nodes wherever possible.
- jcelerier 6y agoQBS was such an attempt to declarative building in C++ in a declarative way which looks sooo elegant on a first glance, and we all saw how well it did work out (it did not)
- kortex 6y agoWhat was the issue with QBS? The syntax looks clean and concise. Seems like the main issue is lack of traction.