Re: [Chicken-users] chicken-iup - progressing nicely but have problem with canvas-draw

[Oleg Kolosov]

On 02/04/14 19:13, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
>
>> This looks very useful indeed.  Is the documentation for CMake better
>> nowadays?  I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake,
>> because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain
>> the build.
> That was part of it.  In addition, CMake was unstable -- we were
> constantly changing our build process to cope with new and incompatible
> versions of CMake (also a problem with autotools) -- and it wasn't truly
> able to cope with our meta-circular build process, and that had to be
> kludged around.  IMO, depending on GNU make only is the Right Thing for
> us: it is rock solid, and if we have to deal with each port separately
> to some degree, so what?  There are not hundreds of targets these days
> that are of practical interest.
We use CMake for moderately complex project with heavy mix of Chicken, C
and various external dependencies. Transition from Make was pain but I
can't remember major problems with the setup. On the plus side, once you
have custom modules for hard parts the usage for not initiated is quite
straightforward. Cross-compilation and keeping few build configurations
around is much easier. I'm not proposing reconsidering CMake for
building Chicken itself, just sharing experience. Maybe I'll try to look
into this.
> What do you think of my idea of dropping even GNU make for MSVC support
> and just compiling everything with a batch file?  One thing I note is
> that MSVC's C compiler is C89 only; do we have dependencies on post-C89
> syntax either in Chicken itself (which presumably could be worked around)
> or in the generated code?
This may actually simplify things for distribution tarballs, but
dropping build system altogether might bring major pain for developers
of the Chicken itself.

-- 
Regards, Oleg