[Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016
Jake.Petroules at qt.io
Tue Sep 6 17:24:33 CEST 2016
On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at<mailto:kevin.kofler at chello.at>> wrote:
I never wanted to use CMake b/c for me it look like a gross hack
(Reminds me of GNU M4).
The CMake language is much easier to use than m4, and also there is just one
layer rather than having autoconf on top of m4, with shell script snippets
There is a reason CMake is being proposed for Qt and autotools is not.
Makefiles are out-dated (no punt intended) and so is CMake and any
other Makefile-based tools.
Makefiles are dead! CMake is ill! (Friendly, easy and provocative
CMake can generate other build files than makefiles (e.g., the Ninja
generator is basically a drop-in replacement).
Again, Ninja has its architectural limitations as well, so this would not be useful. The problem isn't (just) Makefiles, it's the fact that we don't have a build tool that is fundamentally better and more powerful than anything we've ever had before, and we CAN have this. It's like C++ vs Motorola 68k assembler.
I guess somebody could even get CMake to write Qbs files, it would just be
one more generator. :-)
Again, useless, because Qbs is more powerful and at a much higher level of abstraction, so a generator would only be useful in the reverse direction. It's like trying to make a compiler to transform Motorola 68k assembler to C++. Only the reverse transformation of that can done in a useful manner.
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
Jake Petroules - jake.petroules at qt.io<mailto:jake.petroules at qt.io>
Consulting Services Engineer - The Qt Company
Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io<http://qbs.io>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development