4 ms·

Can you give any reasons for being "more capable and easier to work with?" I don't see how it is easier for users since as far as I am aware pkg-config files ar

• jcelerier 4y ago
  > (no equivalent of b_lto, default_libary, b_sanitize, etc.) so you have to learn about each project's non-standard equivalent options. regarding this, I developped a wrapper for CMake a few years ago and never looked back: https://github.com/jcelerier/cninja https://github.com/jcelerier/cninja
• einpoklum 4y ago
  > What is hard about the following for users? The ninja part is the same for CMake and for meson, but let's look at the meson command: > meson setup build <build options...> Except that when you try to specify build options, you will often fails, because some of them are "core options" and some of them are "base options" and some are "universal options" and their syntax is different. Sometimes. See, e.g.: https://stackoverflow.com/q/63549328/1593077 https://stackoverflow.com/q/63549328/1593077
  • germandiago 4y ago
    Oh you seem to talk as if the option/set CMake mess was not one hundred times messier.
    • einpoklum 4y ago
      It's only (somewhat) messy for the person writing the CMakeLists.txt, not for the person building. Which is what I was saying.
      • germandiago 4y ago
        In Meson in none of the sides is messy... at least Idk what you find difficult or frustrating. Options are options and they are all typed... lists, booleans, numbers, strings, combos...