[Development] Future of QBS

Konstantin Tokarev annulen at yandex.ru
Mon Oct 16 12:12:14 CEST 2017

16.10.2017, 05:43, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler at chello.at>:
> Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>>  I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
>>  You're all wrong."
>>  This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no
>>  comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing.
> It makes one important point (and elaborates it to great lengths): developer
> familiarity. Even if QBS were actually a lot better than CMake (something I
> am also very sceptical about), it would still be universally hated simply
> because it is not what developers (and distribution packagers!) know.
> As a distribution packager, I am really fed up of some upstream projects
> reinventing their own custom build systems (qmake, gyp, gn, qbs, etc.) that
> don't work with our existing packaging boilerplate.

FWIW, some major open project have migrated to Meson recently [1], so that
build system is becoming something that packagers *have to* know how to
deal with.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson_%28software%29#Adopters

>>  How many people had the same reaction when clang started?
>>  Nowadays, clang is actually far superior to gcc, it brought tooling
>>  like we would never have dared to dream of .
> Yet, Fedora packages are still built using GCC and there are no plans to
> change that any time soon. The generated code is simply more efficient.
>>  Same goes with SVN vs git, now (almost) everyone have given up with SVN.
>>  SVN was "CVS in better", git is a completely different approach to
>>  SCM, SVN is now a zombie.
> Yet, the git way to do things is not necessarily better. Revision IDs are
> not comparable without having the absolute history. Developers can commit
> their work locally without pushing it, encouraging intransparent
> development. And the learning curve is a lot steeper if you are not used to
> it yet.
> That said, git nowadays has the exact same argument going for it as CMake:
> it is what everyone is now used to.
>         Kevin Kofler
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


More information about the Development mailing list