Which will probably be never.

  • aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Did you know that there is a debugger in Jetbrains CLion (and I think VS as well) that allows you to step through your CMake scripts? As ridiculous as this may seem, actually it is really useful.

  • Asudox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I mean, all cmake does is run some commands for you. You not understanding cmake errors (mostly) means you don’t understand the errors given to you by the C/C++ compiler.

          • Asudox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            If it means my code won’t panic out of nowhere and cause a disaster for me, I am willing to “take a vacation” for my program to finish compiling.

    • paperplane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      CMake can also emit its own errors during the configure step though, particularly if you have complicated build logic and/or lots of external packages.

  • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Imo just use something else. If your build system is really simple just write the Makefiles yourself. If the build system tho needs to be really complex I would use something like meson or scons (Having worked on some gigantic fully GNU make build systems it can get pretty out of hand).

    This is all a personal preference thing but cmake in my experience is really non intuitive and a pain to debug. I know it works for a lot of people but I definitely prefer particularly like scons since its python I have a bit easier time understanding what’s happening.

    If you really need to use cmake, use a debugger like another user commented. There’s also a GNU make debugger in case you need to debug makefiles

  • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Thanks for the laugh.

    That was also my experience, but it ended when I stopped using cmake.

    I’m not mad at anyone for using cmake, but I consider myself blessed on each day that I don’t have to collaborate with them (on cmake).

    Which is weird, because someone will have to pry a Makefile from my cold dead hands, someday.

    • leggettc18@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      In case anyone wants to know the actual answer, it stands for cross platform make, and my understanding is that it’s for generating build project files for various development environments. For instance, with one CMake file you can generate a Visual Studio Solution file, an XCode project file, a Makefile, etc. Several IDEs are also able to read CMake files directly.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        This thread is wild, I’m here like “cmake is by far the simplest way to cross compile to ARM and x86, with and without Cuda build targets” and y’all are talking about IDEs for some reason.

  • JATth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    I never finished reading my CMake book that weights about two kilos. It’s now outdated, except for the core concepts.

  • KindaABigDyl@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Life is and will always be better writing your own Makefiles. It’s literally so easy. I do not get the distaste. Cmake is arcane magic. Bazel is practically written in runes. Makefile is a just a glorified build script, but where you don’t have to use a bunch of if statements to avoid building everything each time.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s one of those massively elegant concepts of the past that’s become unfashionable to learn pretty much just do to time and ubiquity.

    • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      really anyone worth their salt should write perl code to generate makefiles depending on the phase of the moon and if you sacrificed a $chicken, a @chicken, or a %chicken at runtime.

    • leggettc18@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      That works until you need to support Visual Studio or Xcode. Then you either maintain their stuff manually too, or you get CMake to generate all three. I don’t love it but it solves the problem it’s meant to solve. The issue is people using it when they don’t need to.

      • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Xcode implies MacOS, you can use make there too, just beware that some commandline tools take different arguments on BSDs.

      • Hack3900@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not familiar with either why can’t you use Make with VS or Xcode? Can you not set them up to have whatever build bind call Make ?

      • KindaABigDyl@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        You can build with mingw64 built with msvc and use more or less the same Makefile. As for Xcode… well, there’s not really a good reason to support Mac. On principle I wouldn’t even try

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Manual makefiles don’t scale though and you end up needing some other bootstrap framework pretty quick.

  • nexussapphire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I forgot to assign a variable, now it crashes %5 of the time. It’s wild how c doesn’t default variables to null or something.

    • CodeMonkey@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      C does exactly what you tell it, no more. Why waste cycles setting a variable to a zero state when a correct program will set it to whatever initial state it expects? It is not user friendly, but it is performant.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Except that this is wrong. C is free to do all kinds of things you didn’t ask it to, and will often initialize your variables without you writing it.

    • Endmaker@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      default variables to null or something

      That is such a bad idea. Better to have the compiler warn you about it like in Rust, or have the linter / IDE highlight it.

      • nexussapphire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        If it’s going to compile without any warnings I’d rather the app crash rather than continue execution with rogue values as it does now.

        There is so much room for things like corrupted files or undocumented behavior until it crashes. Without the compiler babysitting you it’s a lot easier to find broken variables when they don’t point to garbage.

        • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Just enable all compiler warnings (and disable the ones you don’t care about), a good C compiler can tell you about using unassigned variables.