2 ms·
ugh. CMake is atrocious. It covers maybe .1% of the cases that autotools handles while having some of the worst documentation known to man. Not to mention ye
by ffkklf 12y ago
ugh. CMake is atrocious. It covers maybe .1% of the cases that autotools handles while having some of the worst documentation known to man. Not to mention yet another language to learn. It's not more "modern" than autotools and it's in no way shape or form "newer" than autotools, seeing that automake/autoconf have been in active development since inception.
- krakensden 12y agoIt does let you avoid shell, which makes cross platform stuff less fraught. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of CMakes miserable, quarter-assed BASIC-in-almost-s-exprs language.
- bch 12y agoUpvoted, and re: documentation, I will say that I enjoyed the print book[0] when I was reading it years ago. Your comment re: quarter-assed BASIC... is about what I was thinking when I wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283016 -- a big missed opportunity. [0] http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-CMake-Ken-Martin/dp/1930934262 http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-CMake-Ken-Martin/dp/19309342...