Head_on_a_Stick wrote: ↑2022-09-22 07:00
LE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote: ↑2022-09-21 21:28
but the "problem" is that
autoconf is not generating bash scripts (i.e. no bashism), but a POSIX shell scripts
POSIX sh is a Bourne shell.
Nah, the author claims that the "
main problem" with autotools is that autoconf uses Bourne shell scripts. The point was that the POSIX shell scripting language is the simplest language under the Sun - it was designed to be used by regular end users of the system. Now a "professional" programmer claims that autotools are hard to debug because it is based on that simple language (what if it would be based on a bash?).
He also claims that simple M4 macros are "an extremely low level of abstraction" (exact quoting). Using this logic, the C language must be at the microcode abstraction level
Anyway, the CMAKE project has been started as an "easy way to get a build system" -> the reality have quickly revised that assumption -> today cmake project is basically replicating the functionality of autotools, but without any confirmed benefits.
I dare to say that CMAKE is an effect of the SNS syndrome -> learning how to use existing but complex solutions is boring -> let's create a new one -> who cares that it is incomplete? -> it's new!
(of course CMAKE project is not new today, but still, it tries to implement functionalities that the autotools had 20+ years ago
)