[Qt5-feedback] Qt5's qmake

[Charley Bay]

 Charley spaketh:
> My vote would be a new tool, from the ground-up, using greater heuristics,
> emphasizing simple/clean project configuration definitions.

Aaron respondeth:

> A configuration tool that is cross platform and which has comprehensive
> support for the various needs of real world applications, both proprietary
> and
> open source, is not trivial to say the least.
>
> Also, I'm not sure Qt really needs to be in the business of creating and
> maintaining such a tool. There is enough else to be done.
>
> Instead of reinventing the wheel to little end, despite the allure of
> thinking
> we can do it better than anyone else has before us ;) , I highly recommend
> adopting a known, proven and widely used tool.

<snip, vote for CMake>


You make a very good point.  In response, I only point to the original
reason qmake was created:  The "moc" requirements were originally deemed
unique enough to demand a Qt-specific tool in support of
build-and-deployment (e.g., it also performs resource and language bundling
functionality).

One could assert that build tools have improved their sophistication to the
point where that is much less an issue (e.g., CMake has advanced, and build
systems like Scons have "auto-moc" modules).  However, my feel is that we
will now see new-and-different kinds of those same problems with Qt5 and
beyond (e.g., greater modularity and versioning, more platforms, increased
focus on mobile, new-and-different resources, new and different bundling and
deployment problems).

My original push for new-ground-up-tool was to handle these uniquely-new QML
and other Qt5+ problems.  I'd expect a simplified syntax with a declarative
approach (of course), with project configuration scalabilty.  True, it's not
easy, but IMHO it would be easier than writing QtCreator itself.  And, when
I'm King, in addition to using all my power to destroy the puny lives of all
who had previously opposed me, I'd expect QtCreator to *use* that system
underneath (so it's a very relevant problem to what the Trolls are already
taking on with QtCreator).

In short, QML is new and unique, and IMHO needs to have a sophisticated
resource bundling system similar to what we used to consider for
internationalization (language translation resource bundling).  QtCreator is
attempting to "straddle" that heterogeneous language-and-resource world (for
editing, project compile, and system load/debug), so it is stuck with that
(very rich) project description problem.

We absolutely need the ability to maintain project settings *IN ONE PLACE*,
with scalability across many projects and local override within a given
project.  I merely want my "one native home" for the "System Configuration
Of Record" -- and right now, we DO NOT have that.  So, I'm sad.  And
unbalanced.  And woefully subjected to the entirety of the nature of my
non-Kingship.

I concede the point that, most likely, CMake is the "strongest" thing out
there that can scale to what is required.  I'm not partial to the syntax,
and hesitate to accept the idea that it is "easy" to do "simple" project
maintenance with CMake.  (The simplicity is what I liked about QMake, but
agree it is insufficient going forward.)

I don't know any of the Trolls personally, so I'm reading-between-the-lines
that they don't want to go down the build system road.  QtCreator is "way
cool", but it's an IDE, and will never be a project configuration manager.
My guess is that the Trolls will spend all their tool money on that.  Not a
bad decision (MSVS will never be that either), but it *does* mean they
"punt" on the whole build/resource-bundle/deploy topic.  Bummer.  Especially
since they are kind of screwed by the same problem, since QtCreator includes
a debugging IDE that needs to know all that stuff.

So, I guess I merely want clarity:  Trolls, just say it.  You guys don't do
build configuration management.  Fine.  We'll all move on.

Then, we can shift this discussion to build configuration management options
that happen to support Qt well, and that topic will not happen on the
Qt5-feedback list.

<sigh>

I'm uncertain of the count sufficient to form a plurality of votes that
would make me King.  I'm pretty sure my Mom will vote for me, though, so
that makes one.  That *does* make me feel slightly better.

--charley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt.nokia.com/pipermail/qt5-feedback/attachments/20110512/f34bcfec/attachment.html