3 ms·
> It's been 9 years since Modern CMake came out, and I'd estimate adoption at 50-50. > The current CMake language is fine. Nothing amazing, but good enough. I
by chrsig 4y ago
> It's been 9 years since Modern CMake came out, and I'd estimate adoption at 50-50.
> The current CMake language is fine. Nothing amazing, but good enough.
I'd argue these two statements are in conflict.
I came to c/c++ after several other languages and ecosystems -- the c++ dependency/build ecosystem is by far the worst.
CMake does work. It's underlying capabilities are great, even. But "modern cmake" is sort of a joke syntactically. Generator expressions are indecipherable. Semicolon delimited arrays, no distinguishing between input/output variables... I personally would love for a different DSL frontend to CMake.
> I don't want to disparage the team's work--CMake is awesome software--but the way they see it is very different from the way typical developers see it.
I have to agree with this. The underlying core of cmake is actually pretty awesome. Modern cmake is an improvement in capability. The team deserves credit for that.
- TillE 4y ago> But "modern cmake" is sort of a joke syntactically. Generator expressions are indecipherable. Yeah. CMake works, it can do everything you want somehow, but it's a total mess, and the documentation isn't great. Just a simple wrapper API (like libcurl-easy, for example) would go a long way.
- palata 4y ago> the documentation isn't great. I completely disagree, I almost always find what I need in the docs. > Just a simple wrapper API IMO, just spending a couple of hours learning the basics would go a long way. Usually that is not done.