Qbs 1.11 Released As The Qt Build Tool Successor To QMake

[Nth_man]

That https://xkcd.com/927 is about adding another competing standard, not about improving (a lot) an existing product and replacing it. Additionally, as it was written in this page, "Qbs pre-dates meson by at least a year..."

[discordian]

That https://xkcd.com/927 is about adding another competing standard, not about improving (a lot) an existing product and replacing it. Additionally, as it was written in this page, "Qbs pre-dates meson by at least a year..."

it hasn't replaced qmake, that might be the intention. Just like most de facto standards intended to replace one or more older standard. The punchline you are missing, is that most of them fail at this task.

[boudewijnrempt]

I must say my feelings have become mixed on this. Last I checked the meson Qt5 plugin was totally broken, and missing a _lot_ of features that Qbs (and QMake) have, but wouldn't it be better to concentrate the effort on improving it? Meson integration in Qt Creator is being done as a GSoC project this year.

There's nothing legacy about cmake... That something has been around for some time doesn't make it legacy; things become legacy if there is no more active development, and cmake is under very actively development..

[Nth_man]

> it hasn't replaced qmake, that might be the intention.

Of course that it hasn't replaced QMake, we all knew that.

The punchline is that one user wrote "qmake, cmake, meson, qbs... https://xkcd.com/927" but
a) https://xkcd.com/927 is wrongly applied there because Qbs is about improving (a lot) an existing product and replacing it (is not about adding another competing standard).
b) "Qbs pre-dates meson by at least a year..." but the former user wrote as if Qbs was the later product.

[kpedersen]

There's nothing legacy about cmake...

In 20 years they will all be legacy. Granted, CMake is guaranteed to be the only one still in use

So legacy or not, let the kids play with Qbs and Meson, and let the actual developers use their "legacy" tools.

Me? I still use pure "legacy" Makefiles on *nix and CMake when I have to deal with little shits like Microsoft's C++ compiler and Android.

[carewolf]

In 20 years they will all be legacy. Granted, CMake is guaranteed to be the only one still in use

So legacy or not, let the kids play with Qbs and Meson, and let the actual developers use their "legacy" tools.

Me? I still use pure "legacy" Makefiles on *nix and CMake when I have to deal with little shits like Microsoft's C++ compiler and Android.

The only build-system files I can write without having to copy templates or cross indexing manuals are Makefile and qmake files. CMakeFiles are some obscure noise even if I have been working with them longer than QMake and I can not get used to their way of doing things. Google's new gn tool is somewhat writable too, but it is so unstable a gn version from Chrome 64 can't build Chrome 65, and the whole thing so specific to Chromium, I wouldn't suggest anyone else using it (even though Google did a fine job with ninja, but that seems to have been a lot less tightly coupled with Chrome).