6 ms·

If you think cmake isn't very good, the solution isn't to add more layers of crap around cmake, but to replace it. Cmake itself exists because a lot of humans h

by dima55 5mo ago

If you think cmake isn't very good, the solution isn't to add more layers of crap around cmake, but to replace it. Cmake itself exists because a lot of humans haven't bothered to read the gnu make manual, and added more cruft to manage this. Please don't add to this problem. It's a disease

wiseowise 5mo ago
I'm all for shitting on CMake, but Jesus, to suggest Make as a replacement/improvement is an unhinged take.
- dima55 5mo ago
  I'm suggesting that people creating build systems read the make manual. Surely this isn't controversial?
  - nnevatie 5mo ago
    People using CMake might want to build the same code on multiple platforms - this is trivially achievable, unlike with Make.
dymk 5mo ago
As much of a dog as cmake is, "just use make!" does not solve many of the problems that cmake makes a go at. It's like saying go write assembler instead of C because C has so many footguns.
- dima55 5mo ago
  GNU Make has a debugger. This alone makes it far superior to every other build tool I've ever seen. The cmake debugging experience is "run a google search, and try random stuff recommended by other people that also have no idea how the thing works". This shouldn't be acceptable.
  - beckford 5mo ago
    That hasn't been true for a few years at least. https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/cmake-debug.html https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/cmake-debug.html is has had CMake debugging since cmake 3.27. Ditto for vscode and probably other C IDEs I am not familiar with. So does Gradle for Java. GNU make is hardly exclusive.
randerson_112 5mo ago
This is very true. My thought process was that since majority of projects already run on CMake, I would simply build off of that and take advantage of what CMake is good at while making the more difficult operations easier. Thank you for your feedback!
ahartmetz 5mo ago
CMake does three main things: Compilation with dependency tracking, finding external dependencies, and platform-independence. Make only does one of them. Another comment suggested batch files - these do zero out of three.

by dima55 5mo ago

wiseowise 5mo ago

I'm all for shitting on CMake, but Jesus, to suggest Make as a replacement/improvement is an unhinged take.

dima55 5mo ago
I'm suggesting that people creating build systems read the make manual. Surely this isn't controversial?
- nnevatie 5mo ago
  People using CMake might want to build the same code on multiple platforms - this is trivially achievable, unlike with Make.

dymk 5mo ago

As much of a dog as cmake is, "just use make!" does not solve many of the problems that cmake makes a go at. It's like saying go write assembler instead of C because C has so many footguns.

dima55 5mo ago
GNU Make has a debugger. This alone makes it far superior to every other build tool I've ever seen. The cmake debugging experience is "run a google search, and try random stuff recommended by other people that also have no idea how the thing works". This shouldn't be acceptable.
- beckford 5mo ago
  That hasn't been true for a few years at least. https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/cmake-debug.html https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/cmake-debug.html is has had CMake debugging since cmake 3.27. Ditto for vscode and probably other C IDEs I am not familiar with. So does Gradle for Java. GNU make is hardly exclusive.

randerson_112 5mo ago

This is very true. My thought process was that since majority of projects already run on CMake, I would simply build off of that and take advantage of what CMake is good at while making the more difficult operations easier. Thank you for your feedback!

ahartmetz 5mo ago

CMake does three main things: Compilation with dependency tracking, finding external dependencies, and platform-independence. Make only does one of them. Another comment suggested batch files - these do zero out of three.