On 6/22/2017 1:18 PM, paul via Boost wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 17:35 +0100, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost Sent: 22 June 2017 17:05 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Edward Diener Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
On 6/22/2017 7:06 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost Sent: 21 June 2017 16:23 To: Chris Glover via Boost Cc: Robert Ramey Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
<snip>
So personally, I am now fairly happy using bjam/b2, after years of swearing and gnashing of teeth. Compared to the creators, I'm oligoneuronic
No definition in my "Webster's Third New International Dictionary", I don't have the OED, don't recall the word in literature, find only 'Oligoneuron' on the web about a genus of flowering plants, so a definition would be appreciated as my own neurons are not firing enough connections to understand it. Perhaps it means an oligarchy of neurons, whatever that is supposed to be.
OK - I confess - made that up ;-)
oligo - few
neuronic - neurons
(with the benefit of dimly remembered Latin - I was extruded forcibly though O level by my Mother who had a Classics degree - oligarchy - rule by a few people, and chemistry - oligomers - polymers with a few mers)
But it seems a useful term of (self-)abuse?
What I am really afraid of is not that Boost end-users do not like CMake, because obviously most programmers appear to love it, but that Boost will just be substituting one build system under its own control, which few really understand, for another build system controlled elsewhere, which more evidently understand but whose usage even more people disagree about.
+1
However if we can provide CMake for end-users from our bjam files, without tortuous work, I am all for it as long as I personally don't have to understand it. I find reading the CMake docs, such as they are, much more incomprehensible than the Boost Build docs.
What should I be reading?
https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.9/ dumps me in at the deep end and leaves me at "Huh?"
should I invest in
Mastering CMake Paperback - January 16, 2015 by Ken Martin (Author), Bill Hoffman (Author) $50
There is this:
I am one of those people who find tutorials a completely hopeless way for me to understand any piece of software. I will buy some book instead, but I really want CMake to actually provide documentation which gives me a thorough overview of how CMake works and explains the parts/concepts of CMake as part of this overview. The style of documentation which so many people employ and so many people seem to love, a tutorial and then a mass of largely undifferentiated detail, makes me nauseous.