3 ms·

I think Cmkr fails to state its value proposition by focusing on how it works. Any system like CMake that wraps boatloads of complexity is going to have unexpe

by w10-1 2y ago

I think Cmkr fails to state its value proposition by focusing on how it works. Any system like CMake that wraps boatloads of complexity is going to have unexpected interactions and inscrutable failures. The question for any developer who doesn't want to become a build system guru is whether they can take a happy path far from any gotcha's. That's when people start defining conventions to solve classes of problems: follow this template to do X, and you'll be fine. The value of Cmkr lies in being about to define those conventions and happy paths. I should be able to inspect their templates, and if one fits, I'm good to go. Even nicer would the ability to retrofit my build to a known-working template. But Cmkr only presents the "beginners" template repo as an aside, and says nothing about whether these templates are tested for various projects on various systems. By not explicitly identifying the problem it's trying to solve, Cmkr seems to have bumped up against a solution accidentally, and doesn't give me confidence. I believe that could be easily remedied.

stefan_ 2y ago
What "boatloads of complexity" does CMake wrap and save me from handling myself? Turn on all warnings? Yeah, just check if your CC is MSVC or else and set the flag! Turn on sanitizers? Yeah, just include this 2000 line piece of CMake macro that checks your CC and turns on flags! Find a package? Yeah, just write a FindFooCMake macro file that spells out the exact files to find in the filesystem and parses a header with more macro magic to determine the version. Maybe we decide to ship this shitty macro file with the default distribution later on and cause more conflicts and distress. By the way, we now have a superior C++ namespace inspired way of defining packages that we mix and match with the old stuff in our default distribution. Can't you just use pkg-config files like everyone else? Yeah, just make sure to include another 3000 line CMake macro if you specifically want us to use pkg-config. Cross compile my program for a different architecture? Of course CMake supports that, as long as you write a toolchain file that spells out the exact CC, CXX, sysroot, ... and all other things that could even get a maximally minimal Makefile to trivially cross compile. Make sure to force-overwrite some of the useless autoconfig inspired tests CMake will perform on your toolchain because they are broken with whatever cross compiler you are trying to use. So while CMake does nothing to help with common things, their "CMakeCache" is the most powerful proof for "nothing is more complicated in programming than caching" the world has ever seen.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  I think the point is that every decade or so someone comes out with a new wrapper for the build systems that are wrapping the build systems that are wrapping make. And the developer inevitably makes something that works great for their specific usage of Make/CMake etc in the specific programming niche they occupy. Gradually over the coming decade the build system they created becomes more and more complex as it addresses more and more use cases until it begins to resemble autotools. At that point, someone comes out with a new wrapper and the whole process repeats itself.
- hedora 2y ago
  At least the find_package documentation is simple: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/find_package.html https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/find_package.htm... Sure, there are like 100 pages of useless details in there, but at least they didn’t waste space by explaining what side effects invoking it for a given package will have, or how to find out what package names your system recognizes. Also, they didn’t complicate stuff by defining any naming conventions around what variables finding a package will set up.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    You know, actual important stuff that would be relevant to someone who wanted to use find_package to...find a package.

by w10-1 2y ago

stefan_ 2y ago

What "boatloads of complexity" does CMake wrap and save me from handling myself? Turn on all warnings? Yeah, just check if your CC is MSVC or else and set the flag! Turn on sanitizers? Yeah, just include this 2000 line piece of CMake macro that checks your CC and turns on flags! Find a package? Yeah, just write a FindFooCMake macro file that spells out the exact files to find in the filesystem and parses a header with more macro magic to determine the version. Maybe we decide to ship this shitty macro file with the default distribution later on and cause more conflicts and distress. By the way, we now have a superior C++ namespace inspired way of defining packages that we mix and match with the old stuff in our default distribution. Can't you just use pkg-config files like everyone else? Yeah, just make sure to include another 3000 line CMake macro if you specifically want us to use pkg-config. Cross compile my program for a different architecture? Of course CMake supports that, as long as you write a toolchain file that spells out the exact CC, CXX, sysroot, ... and all other things that could even get a maximally minimal Makefile to trivially cross compile. Make sure to force-overwrite some of the useless autoconfig inspired tests CMake will perform on your toolchain because they are broken with whatever cross compiler you are trying to use. So while CMake does nothing to help with common things, their "CMakeCache" is the most powerful proof for "nothing is more complicated in programming than caching" the world has ever seen.

throwway120385 2y ago
I think the point is that every decade or so someone comes out with a new wrapper for the build systems that are wrapping the build systems that are wrapping make. And the developer inevitably makes something that works great for their specific usage of Make/CMake etc in the specific programming niche they occupy. Gradually over the coming decade the build system they created becomes more and more complex as it addresses more and more use cases until it begins to resemble autotools. At that point, someone comes out with a new wrapper and the whole process repeats itself.
hedora 2y ago
At least the find_package documentation is simple: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/find_package.html https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/find_package.htm... Sure, there are like 100 pages of useless details in there, but at least they didn’t waste space by explaining what side effects invoking it for a given package will have, or how to find out what package names your system recognizes. Also, they didn’t complicate stuff by defining any naming conventions around what variables finding a package will set up.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  You know, actual important stuff that would be relevant to someone who wanted to use find_package to...find a package.