Comment by throwaway2037

Comment by throwaway2037 3 months ago

    > I'm completely convinced that F# (along with Scala, Haskell, and OCaml) adoption has stalled due to having ridiculously bad build systems.

Scala? I am not trolling here: Are you joking? Scala is part of the Java ecosystem. Sure, Maven gets lots of hate on HN, but it is very mature and has excellent integration with IDEs and CI/CD systems (TeamCity, Jenkins, etc.). In the last 10 years, many Java developers have moved to Gradle, which has equally good integration.

    > Hell, 80% of the reason I choose Rust over C++ for embedded work is because of the build system.

What is wrong with CMake for C++?

oblio 3 months ago

How long are Scala compilation times for a Hello World CLI, a Hello World basic webapp and for a reasonably sized production size code base?

My guess is that it's much longer than for the equivalent Java apps.

> What is wrong with CMake for C++?

It doesn't manage dependencies.

Reply View 1 reply

oriolid 3 months ago

CMake has fetch_content, and CPM is a package manager built on top of it. They are not great.

Reply View | 0 replies

dkarl 3 months ago

Perl is mature, too.

Maven is awful. SBT is awful. Gradle is awful. I've used them all professionally, and the best I can say about them is that you can get the job done with them.

Newer languages and newer build systems are much better experiences, because of decades more hindsight and because language designers think about tooling from the start. Java was designed with the assumption that all software projects were built with Make, and with no ambition to improve on that. There was no Java-specific build tool until Ant was released as a standalone tool circa 2000.

> What is wrong with CMake for C++?

Granted, most of what's wrong with CMake is the problem it solves. Probably there's no solution that wouldn't be at least close to as awful as CMake. But it is objectively a hideous experience compared to any language created in the last 15 years.

Reply View 0 replies