The tool has one critical function: to generate files that calculate dependencies properly.
It does not do this. Been using it since 2.6. Get one of their super-tweaky ever-changing commands wrong and it doesn't generate dependencies AT ALL on some platforms. Sure, your project builds. And it's also a poisoned dart trap for anyone who attempts to modify your code.
A quick skim of the bug list is enough to make any truly-fastidious engineer's sphincter clinch. When you have over 1000 bugs that aren't even assigned to a dev ... in a dev tool ... hoo boy.
> A quick skim of the bug list is enough to make any truly-fastidious engineer's sphincter clinch. When you have over 1000 bugs that aren't even assigned to a dev ... in a dev tool ... hoo boy.
Er, what? Chromium has over 50000 unassigned bugs. Any software that sees a lot of use is going to have lots of bugs, and depending on the workflow sometimes none of them will be assigned.
I asked you "how is it buggy?" and your answer essentially is "It's buggy, trust me."... weasel answers, much?
I'm by no means a fan of cmake. But if I use and trust it, yet can generate much better criticism than you do, how are you going to convince anyone they shouldn't be using it?
The bug list for a dev tool, that devs use, containing bugs meticulously entered by devs, carries weight. I also provided sample code above, so I clearly use the tool. And I've written and published scripts that show that it does not generate dependencies reliably.
"CMake is actually very reliable" --scrollaway
That's not criticism. That's just an opinion. No more or less valid than mine. But certainly less supported by evidence.
