<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Would it be simpler to just generate Makefiles from Smalltalk?</div><br><div><div>On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:08 PM, gettimothy <<a href="mailto:gettimothy@zoho.com">gettimothy@zoho.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"><div><div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><div>Hi all.</div><div><br></div><div>Unless I am talked out of it , I am going to generate the CMMake "stuff" from Smalltalk classes similar to the way that VMMaker generates source code.</div><div><br></div><div>My reasons are:</div><div> 1. source control is Monticello. (and if you generate the source tree, the pharo folks can use that to pipe into git--so that sorta-kinda-syncs things up a bit)</div><div> 2. modification and maintenance is in Squeak.</div><div> 3. it should be fun.</div><div> 4. Modular (looking at the CMake generators, it just begs for OOP approach)</div><div> 5. Each plugin is responsible for its own CMakeLists.txt (i.e. cmake configuration file)</div><div> ....</div><div><br></div><div>whaddya think?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Also, if you are ok with the idea, what do you want it named? Do you want some classes added to VMMaker or do you want something elsewhere?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>p.s. I am suffering from a bit of Spring Fever and took the weekend and Monday and most of today off. </div><div>I am still studying CMaker before I even look at the existing project for Interpreter and I will probably not look at the existing Interpreter CMake project until I go through</div><div>the exercise of writing my own from scratch (unless I fall flat on my face, then I will take a peek (: )</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>