Re: build system alternatives (Was: Using vala in GNOME)

["Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <gjc inescporto pt>]

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 23:45 +0300, natan yellin wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
> <mikkel kamstrup gmail com> wrote:
>         2008/6/30 Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt>:
>         
>         > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 12:01 -0300, Johan Dahlin wrote:
>         >> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>         >> > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 15:07 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>         >> [..]
>         >>
>         >> >> Plus, CMake is getting more mature and stable and it
>         already supports
>         >> >> VisualStudio and XCode project files conversion, lack of
>         proper
>         >> >> extensibility being its only downside at the moment.
>         >> >
>         >> > Lack of extensibility, and use of another arcane custom
>         made programming
>         >> > language (if we can call it that) for everything.
>         >> >
>         >> > No, CMake is not an answer.  It is not significantly
>         better than
>         >> > autotools to justify a switch to it IMHO.
>         >>
>         >> CMake *is* considerably better. Xcode/VisualStudio are
>         killer features which
>         >> alone would make a switch worth it.
>         >
>         > I disagree that Xcode/VisualStudio are killer features.  A
>         powerful
>         > programming language and extensibility are way better
>         features IMHO.
>         > Does a significant percentage of GNOME developers use any of
>         these IDEs?
>         > Without such data you can't assert that those are killer
>         features.
>         >
>         > For the case of Vala, I don't see how CMake handles it any
>         better than
>         > autotools.
>         >
>         >>
>         >> Can we please start to organize ourselves and try to move
>         forward with
>         >> switching to another build system?
>         >
>         > We can't switch to any single build system any more than we
>         can switch
>         > to a single DVCS.  Or to a single programming language, for
>         that matter!
>         > Different developers value different features.  Modern
>         developers have
>         > to adapt to different environments.  I, for example,
>         regularly program
>         > in C, C++, and Python.  I know how to use cvs, subversion,
>         bazaar, git
>         > (poorly), and mercurial.  In particular I use subversion,
>         bazaar, and
>         > mercurial very regularly, all at the same time, git not so
>         much only
>         > because I didn't need to.  I can hack plain makefiles,
>         > autoconf/automake, waf, and scons.
>         
>         
>         And is this an acceptable barrier of entry to Gnome
>         development?
> Agreed. While the skills that you mentioned do come with time no
> matter what, you want to avoid forcing beginner developers to chew
> more than they can swallow.  

That is a moot point.  A beginner chooses *one* project to hack on,
that's all.  All he has to know is the programming language and tools of
that single project.

That is an issue when a developer wants to transition to another module,
at which point he is probably no longer a beginner.

This is basically the same thing as with programming languages.  Do you
think everything should be coded in C in order to lower the required
skill set of beginner hackers?  What about Python, C++, Vala, C#, Perl?
We ban modules written in those other languages because they force
developers to learn a new programming language?

Besides, making life easier beginner contributors, fine, I'm all for it.
But that has to be balanced with keeping the mental sanity of the
contributors we already have.

-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>
"The universe is always one step beyond logic" -- Frank Herbert