On 8 November 2013 16:49, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Igor,
> hi list,
>
> sorry for replying late,…
>
> My reply was intended to stir the conversation a litte,
> to keep it going, which, I assume, it did. I really like
> your opinion, Igor :)
>
>
> On 07.11.2013, at 14:28, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7 November 2013 08:58, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Hey Tim and all,
> >> On 07.11.2013, at 05:00, Ron Teitelbaum <ron at usmedrec.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey Tim,
> >> >
> >> > Göran and Eliot have been discussing this.  I just talked to Eliot
> about it
> >> > yesterday.  He said he was happy to support cmake but didn't want to
> have to
> >> > do the work himself.  I'm hoping that the work Göran is doing on this
> now
> >> > can be turned over to Eliot when it is finished.  I think there is
> agreement
> >> > that combining the excellent work of pharo build with Eliot's new vm
> work is
> >> > a very good thing to do.  The work to merge the build environments is
> >> > already being done at 3D ICC.  We are working on this for the Mac
> also but
> >> > have not discussed it with Ian yet.
> >> >
> >> > Ron Teitelbaum
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:
> squeak-dev-
> >> >> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of tim Rowledge
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:04 PM
> >> >> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> >> >> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] A Bounty for CMake-ifying stack/Cog vm
> build
> >> > process
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, no interest? Is it because make is painful or because nobody
> needs to
> >> >> make any more money?
> >>
> >>
> >> I actually have interest but I am currently reluctant,
> >> for time-capturing reasons in my personal and work life.
> >>
> >> However, Here is what I would do:
> >>
> >> • Start from Ians CMake work, and try to generalize it for the
> >>   non-Linux platforms
> >> • Windows would be kind-of straight-forward,
> >> • For OS X, I would really want to have the Cocoa-based VM stuff
> >>   (aka Squeak VM 5.4.7.x) integrated and proper Xcode files
> >>   generated, especially to be able to have iOS VMs built automatically.
> >>    Here, some information from John McIntosh would be helpfull,
> especially
> >>   a simple walk-through.
> >>    I have some experience with that[1]
> >>
> >>
> >> Despite all admiration I have for the way the PharoVM is built, there
> is one
> >> thing that bothers me:
> >> • You first somehow generate the VM sources (which is fine, and the
> automated way is amazing)
> >> • THEN, the a Script generates CMake-Files
> >> • CMake then generates Makefiles
> >> • and then finally a vm is compiled.
> >> This is one generating step too much, for my taste.
> >> Personally, I'd prefer CMake to just pick up the C-files generated by
> VMMaker,
> >> so that adding a new platform does not need to change the VMMaker…
> >>
> >> The main big issue with 'platform-neutral' static source files, that
> they tend to
> >> grow with tons of #ifdef-s over time, reducing readability and creating
> a mess.
> >>
> > My point is that one or another way you have to deal with platform
> differences,
> > and the way how i prefer to do it is using smalltalk code,
> > but not .m4 files, or .cmake files, or writing a medium novel long
> configuration files
> > using strange (better to say weird) scripting DSL.
> > I can express all build process logic in smalltalk, which does not
> lessens the amount
> > of work to deal with all platform nuances and dependencies etc, but at
> least it allows me to organize and shape it
> > into some manageable form, which is easy to change & learn.
> >
> >  And another difference is, that i prefer working with browser & classes
> than
> > with dozens of directories and files lying here and there.
>
>
> I did not want to imply we have to do it my way, not at all.
> And you are certainly right. Smalltalk is a good way to do things.
>
> The only thing that got me thinking is,
>   a lot of people use tools like CMake to drive build processes, and
>   they know the edges of the domain very well. Building software can
>   be quite complex: think Platforms, compiler quirks, SDK restrictions,
>   cross compilations, to just name a few.
>    CMake (even more than autotools) is quite good at these tasks,
>   especially regarding the cross-platform part.
> If we now start to, effectively, reimplement CMake or autotools, we will
> run in the issues, those tools all have solved years ago. CMake even has
> beautiful output.
>
> I think it would take an tremendous effort to get a Build tool that
> (only thinking of the Squeak/Pharo VM)
> • can build well with different compilers (Clang/Gcc, probably Microsoft)
> • can handle the platform-discovery (Linux, OSX, Windows, RISC!)
> • can handle library discovery (finding stuff like libuuid)
> • can do cross-compilation and the signing-stuff (iOS, perhaps android)
>
> If we get this working, this would be amazing.
> I am a bit reluctant, it would be a lot of work for me…
>
>
hehe, do you think i felt something else when started work on trying make
VM to be able to build automatically?
i doubt anyone can find it fun to grok through dozens of dusty old source &
configuration files
in attempt to put some order there.
i did what i did, and now we using it to build pharo.
And you free to use hours we spent on what we did. as well as free to not,
of course.
i don't wanna advertise or convince anyone because you can just download it
and see by yourself.


>
>
> >
> > But sure thing, it is a question of taste. If you prefer to maintain
> this:
> > -------------------------
>
> > [22 lines old CMAKE]
>
> > --------------------------
> > And/or this:
> > --------------------------
>
> > [96 lines autoconf/make/whatever]
>
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > instead of plain smalltalk code, it is up to you.
> >
> > But that's about 'too much' for my taste.
>
> I concur.
>
> My impression is, we can choose from four “evils”[1]:
>         1. Accept the status quo. Painful for starters with its 8+ ways
>            of doing essentially the same and every single one has some
> kind of
>            big drawback.
>         2. Use CMake completely. Painful, because we have to maintain two
>            bodies of knowledge, VMMaker and CMake.
>         3. Use cmake through CMakeVMMaker. Painful, because it can not
> fully
>            benefit from Smalltalk nor from CMake. You have always to make
> up your
>            mind whether to implement something on the Smalltalk or the
> CMake level
>         4. Have a Smalltalk-only build too. Painful, because it is going
> to take
>            a lot of time.
>
> I can accept any of them, but the first :)
> 2. and 3. have the benefits that they are already there, to certain
> degrees.
> (2. only in the Unix-vm part, done by Ian, 3. currently only used by the
> Pharo
>  community)
>
> How shall we as the VM community[2] decide?
>
> Best
>         -Tobias
>
> [1] not really evil, only each painful to a certain degree
> [2] Who are we actually?
>     • The Pharo and Squeak people,
>     • The Cuis people
>     • The Newspeak People
>     • The CogVM people
>     • Whom am I missing?
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131108/b17bffd9/attachment.htm