Re: Premake vs. CMake
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Premake vs. CMake
- From: "Gregg Reynolds" <dev@...>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 05:32:31 -0600
On 2/1/08, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah but do you really believe that as a build tool, premake is of the
> same industrial quality as CMake? CMake has probably 2 orders of
> magnitude more development resources going into it. So the Lua in
I wonder what happens when those resources go away. Maybe a community
would pick it up, maybe not. One of the advantages of autoconf is a
large community of people who use it and keep it alive, in spite of
its warts. Plus it's unix-like - a collection of lots of small tools.
The CMake source looks much more monolithic and about as complicated
as autoconf to me. A lua-based tool would presumably have the
advantage of simplicity. Not to mention portability. Autoconf is
designed to generate shell code dependent on a very few tools commonly
available on all (unix) systems; a lua-based tool could (in principle)
depend on nothing more than a local C compiler. Having to ship CMake
with one's project seems like a major drawback to me, although I
suppose for megaprojects that's less of an issue.
-gregg