[Pharo-dev] CMake

Esteban Lorenzano estebanlm at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 04:20:26 EST 2019


Hi,

Yes, when we had the CMake files, I used to generate an Xcode project to work on macOS. 
This was very good for work/debug. 

> On 17 Jan 2019, at 03:21, Ben Coman via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev at lists.pharo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com>
> Subject: CMake
> Date: 17 January 2019 at 03:21:18 CET
> To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev at lists.pharo.org>, Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion <vm-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> 
> 
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 06:17, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         - About CMake, you may be right that makefile is better than CMake but a part of the world is using 
>         CMake and the net result is that we lost our effort and infrastructure just to follow you. Ronie uses CMake.  
>         Igor which I consider as a talented developer used CMake because he thought it was the best tool 
>         he should use. 
> 
> Yes, and I disagree about the way that they use it, and for good reason.  I have defended my use of Makefiles for a long time, for objective reasons. 
> 
> These reasons may be technically correct, but in terms of *community* consider it similar to premature optimization.
> For yourself, the priority is a faster build.  Others may prioritize a faster coding workflow using an IDE like Visual Studio.
> Indeed, back when I trialed building minheadless on Windows a *primary* consideration was that it looked easy to 
> use Visual Studio because minheadless had a CMake build.  That led to me contributing a couple of small fixes for win64,
> but without the enticement of CMake I might never have opened that box.   
> 
> Consider then the possibility that a portion of our Windows using community remains untapped 
> because their skill set is Visual Studio and they don't see an easy path to using it with plain makefiles**.
> So it depends on what is better for the *community* to optimize for:
> * faster build-time for incumbents (important because thats where the majority of contributions come from)   
> * broader community involvement with a workflow accelerating IDE (important because growing the vm community is important, from which additional core devs may arise) 
> 
> ** I do understand that plain makefiles can be used with VS, but I'm not clear on the setup and 
> unsure if all the fancy intellisense tools work.
> 
> I have also proposed good ways for using CMake (to derive a platform-specific header file defining available platform-specific features). 
> 
> I presume its the additional multi-build-system features that people want CMake for, not just the using it in name only.
> I can't remember the trade-off between Automake-configure and CMake-configure.  Make using CMake-configure
> would make it easier to co-ordinate parallel CMake and GnuMake systems.  I think I've noticed several large
> code-bases providing both (but I'd have to check)
>  
> 
> But my objection to Igor's process was that he generated sources on each build. 
> 
>  
> And my objections to Ronie's use of CMake for the minheadless build are that a) it is slow and
> 
> I'd like to quantify that.  
> @esteban, I remember you converted minheadless from CMake to Gnumake, but I'm not sure if I've got that right.
> Can both be run off the current HEAD for minheadless?  Or I could compare HEAD with a previous commit that had CMake. 

I do not understand you question :)
What is now in head should be the result of my(our, with Ronie) work.

Esteban  

> 
> 
> b) explicit feature sets are much better than the implicit feature sets that arise when using CMake.
> 
> I'd like to understand this better. Could you expand?
> 
> cheers -ben
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20190117/14220a64/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list