Build system (was Re: Future of KDE Development)

[mETz]

On Dienstag Februar 15 2005 00:14, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2005 23:30, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > I looked at SConscript you've posted and I'm a bit scaried now.
> >
> > I also had a look at it and then I remembered why I didn't like it. It
> > feels like writing a program which compiles my program instead of
> > declaring some facts in order to have another tool compile my program.
>
> I think it's much better too use a widely spread language like python for
> writing the makefiles than some special dialect, like cmake provides, it
> might look more complex, but learning the python basics isn't as hard as
> remembering again just another unusual language.

Ugh, I don't want to learn _any_ new language. all I want is set a few vars 
and be done (i.e. like Makefile.am or qmake projects work right now) and I'm 
pretty sure I'm not the only one with this opinion. Coding C++ is complex 
enough, don't make it even more confusing with weird script-languages like 
perl or python.

> Like Coolo said, Makefile.am are most times borked after developer try even
> the most trivial changes, as they (like me on each second commit ;) just
> miss some part of the semantics. Python or every other scripting language
> would lower this barrier I guess.

I don't know anything about python and looking at scons doesn't create the 
wish to change that.

I for myself have decided to stick with qmake for now, don't need weird 
configure checks (besides, I think configure checks and compiling/linking 
rules don't have to be written in the same language).

Bye, Stefan aka mETz