4 ms·
I don't mind CMake. It's awful, but I'm already using C or C++, so the bar is set pretty low. It does do a few things right, and at least some of the things it
by tom_ 2y ago
I don't mind CMake. It's awful, but I'm already using C or C++, so the bar is set pretty low. It does do a few things right, and at least some of the things it does wrong are manageable.
I'll eat at least a bit of shit if it means I can get more than one platform's-worth of build process out of a single set of human-editable configuration files.
- queuebert 2y agoHave you tried meson? I used it once many years ago, and it seemed slightly better.
- ahartmetz 2y agoMeson's approach to simplicity is if you need anything nontrivial, you simply add it to Meson itself. In CMake, you can script it in more cases.
- homebrewer 2y agoDepends on what you need; you can easily call out to external Python scripts to solve many problems, which will work everywhere because Python is needed to run meson itself.
- wrngadsa 2y agoMeson is quite nice if you want to build software exactly and exclusively how the Meson designers want to build software. The world does not work like this though. CMake is weird but once you've learned some non-intuitive stuff, it works very well and there's a reason why pretty much everyone is using it.
- foldr 2y agoI initially tried to use Meson for a small emscripten project targeting WASM, but it seemed stuck on the idea that I was cross-compiling (technically true), and this seemed to make everything more complicated. With CMake I was able to hack together a working build configuration without too much trouble. I just had to tell it that I wanted to use emscripten as the compiler.