[Development] Future of QBS

[Branislav Katreniak]

> Meson is, as far as I can tell (I had already looked at it a couple
times),
> mostly a CMake clone written in Python. I fail to see how it is
conceptually
> any different from (let alone better than) CMake. It is mainly pushed by
> GNOME developers who are fed up of stone-age autotools, but apparently do
> not want to use the same thing KDE uses (CMake) just because KDE uses it.

Having worked with cmake quite a while, I recently discovered Meson and
I found it to be dead simpler to use.
Easy to start with, fast builds, good defaults, good integration with tools
like pkg-config,
easy to call code generators, easy to glue more projects into one build
with subprojects,
cross platform builds and with native targets, etc.

QtC is right that it is possible to provide far better developer's
experience than cmake does.
Having worked with meson, I don't want to look back at cmake again.

Kind regards
 Brano

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at>
wrote:

> Tobias Hunger wrote:
> > I am still missing a comparison of qbs and *current* build system
> options.
> > All I see is qbs vs. qmake and qbs vs. cmake 2.x. Neither qmake nor cmake
> > is what qbs will be competing with by the time it is ready to be used in
> > earnest.
> >
> > So far we excluded most possible build systems on the grounds that they
> do
> > not support the mixed host/target builds we do. That requirement is going
> > away. So we have more options now. Just to name two: Bazel promises great
> > scalability and reliability, meson claims to be simple and fast. Even
> > CMake made a lot of progress since version 2.x.
>
> This is the first time I hear of Bazel, so it cannot be that popular. The
> fact that it is written in Java also makes it a poor fit for Qt, as it
> would
> make Qt depend on the huge Java stack to build.
>
> Meson is, as far as I can tell (I had already looked at it a couple times),
> mostly a CMake clone written in Python. I fail to see how it is
> conceptually
> any different from (let alone better than) CMake. It is mainly pushed by
> GNOME developers who are fed up of stone-age autotools, but apparently do
> not want to use the same thing KDE uses (CMake) just because KDE uses it.
>
>         Kevin Kofler
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20171016/0711576d/attachment.html>