[rescue] tired of current GUIs / a rant about the daily garbage we put up with (a little OT)

[Stefan Skoglund]

ons 2019-10-23 klockan 15:22 -0600 skrev Richard:
> In article <4a49dc04054d06c4fc72ce1a16631acd1129fce8.camel at agj.net>,
>     Stefan Skoglund <stefan.skoglund at agj.net> writes:
> 
> > 
> The world has moved to CMake, some time ago.  I used to work with
> John
> Calcote, who wrote the only book that exists on autoconf.  There is a
> paragraph in the introduction section of the book on CMake that says
> why CMake is superior to autoconf/autotools.  I asked John's opinion
> of what they wrote in the CMake book and he agreed.  So yeah,
> autoconf/autotools is an abomination and doesn't work at all on a
> system that isn't unix-like, e.g. Windows, VMS, etc.  CMake is
> superior and uses a completely different approach from autotools
> which
> avoids all the silliness described in that article (which was a nice
> read, thanks whoever shared that link :).


Ok CMake it is .....

We have a new target for our sw !
Lets write a description of it for CMake .... HOW ????

CMake tries to hide a lot of complexity but what happen when
you have to do another target ?

If i understand correctly (
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50884363/how-do-i-use-cmake-for-a-custom-compiler-and-custom-os
)

A Cmake user who needs to compile for a peculiar target needs to write
a toolchain description. Is it well documented how to do that ?

What has happended is that we have less diversity today in used 
operating systems and hardware so the reason for the existence of
autotools is less obvious.

What we do have is social and legal differences - which sw vendors
tries to gloss over (Cerner had to tell their customer here in Sweden
that the deployment of Cerner's Millenium for the customer is delayed
with a year. I wonder if a year will be enough - the delay is said to
be due to legal differences and the structure of the customer(s) )