![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | An email has been received at
VRTS concerning some or all of the text on this page, and can be read by users with a VRTS account.
However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for the text. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT volunteer, the text will be deleted. |
[Removed the following on the theory that it made it too much like advertising:]
Mark Foskey 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Both of these people have Wiki links pointing to no article. Unless someone is prepared to create articles for them - and not just about their work on CMake - then the links will be removed. Sslaxx ( talk) 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Blender is also listed as using SCons! Is it possible it uses the two? I find it hard to belive... 189.87.149.23 ( talk)NeoStrider —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
Yes, it is possible, you just have to write both SConstruct and CMakeLists.txt, then you can use either CMake or SCons to build. Spidermario ( talk) 13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the specific book link really interesting on the page? Think just the open documentation references are valid in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guaxinim ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure, that Conky a SuperTux use cmake? In their last archives is used autotools.-- Dundee5 ( talk) 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
SuperTux does have a CMakeLists.txt, at least in its SubVersion repository. However, I didn't find any for Conky. Spidermario ( talk) 11:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The text marked as possible copyright infringement for the CMake entry on Wikipedia.org is available for use in the discussion of CMake as a software application and solution. As a company we have made this text available for use as part of our corporate messaging. The permissions can be found here: http://cmake.org/cmake/project/press_kit.html
Please contact me if further clarification is needed, Niki Russell (niki.russell@kitware.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.253.20 ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as GNU make and autotools are the main "competitor", shouldn't this page at least try to compare them a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.13.200 ( talk) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Confusing make(1) with GNU autotools. The latter is the competitor. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:0:0:0:42 ( talk) 00:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I get the idea that cmake is a tool that creates Makefiles in cases where a novice doesn't actually know how to fully use the make tool. Appears to be another layer on a wedding cake to make programming easier for novices at the expense of a higher risk of missing dependencies and reliability of compilation.
The § Notable applications that use CMake section lists 70+ applications, most without references. Do we really want to keep adding stuff to that section until Wikipedia runs out of space and explodes? It looks more like a 'Oh, I know another app that uses it that's not yet listed' list. Make (software) doesn't feel the need to list everything... -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this whole article is just an advertisement. Really, why does an encyclopedia need to list features of every software package? Just leave cmake in the build generation tools article and delete this ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:E50:7016:99C0:7176:CC20:28EF ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CMake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
CPack is almost a stub. I'm not sure if it meets the notability criteria as a standalone article, with only one reference. Should it be merged to this subject article? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 03:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Mwtoews: I know about {{ code}} but I want few commands to be highlighted in language-wise way. Why not? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
|lang=cmake
parameter to achieve what you want. However, I found that add_executable(...)
is more consistent and readable than add_executable(...)
, so I picked the former. So why colourise these two inline words? I would normally choose to inline syntax highlight longer code segments to help distinguish between (e.g.) operators, variables, etc., but this consideration doesn't really apply to the two words. +
m
t
21:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@
Alexander Davronov: What did you mean when you wrote "the background is overburdened by bunch of unhighlighted code words"? Which words overburden which background?
—
Black Walnut
talk
13:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Peterl:
.. While it does configuration, I think it's clearer to say build-system generator
The current version is confusing because it makes you to think that it completely replaces tools like gnu make etc. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)«... A CMake Generator is responsible for writing the input files for a native build system.» [1]
03:01, May 26, 2021 - «CMake is definitely not functional. Having a function keyword does not make something functionalFrom the functional programming article: "In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm where programs are constructed by applying and composing functions. It is a declarative programming paradigm in which function definitions are trees of expressions that map values to other values, rather than a sequence of imperative statements which update the running state of the program."»
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | An email has been received at
VRTS concerning some or all of the text on this page, and can be read by users with a VRTS account.
However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for the text. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT volunteer, the text will be deleted. |
[Removed the following on the theory that it made it too much like advertising:]
Mark Foskey 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Both of these people have Wiki links pointing to no article. Unless someone is prepared to create articles for them - and not just about their work on CMake - then the links will be removed. Sslaxx ( talk) 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Blender is also listed as using SCons! Is it possible it uses the two? I find it hard to belive... 189.87.149.23 ( talk)NeoStrider —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
Yes, it is possible, you just have to write both SConstruct and CMakeLists.txt, then you can use either CMake or SCons to build. Spidermario ( talk) 13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the specific book link really interesting on the page? Think just the open documentation references are valid in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guaxinim ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure, that Conky a SuperTux use cmake? In their last archives is used autotools.-- Dundee5 ( talk) 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
SuperTux does have a CMakeLists.txt, at least in its SubVersion repository. However, I didn't find any for Conky. Spidermario ( talk) 11:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The text marked as possible copyright infringement for the CMake entry on Wikipedia.org is available for use in the discussion of CMake as a software application and solution. As a company we have made this text available for use as part of our corporate messaging. The permissions can be found here: http://cmake.org/cmake/project/press_kit.html
Please contact me if further clarification is needed, Niki Russell (niki.russell@kitware.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.253.20 ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as GNU make and autotools are the main "competitor", shouldn't this page at least try to compare them a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.13.200 ( talk) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Confusing make(1) with GNU autotools. The latter is the competitor. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:0:0:0:42 ( talk) 00:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I get the idea that cmake is a tool that creates Makefiles in cases where a novice doesn't actually know how to fully use the make tool. Appears to be another layer on a wedding cake to make programming easier for novices at the expense of a higher risk of missing dependencies and reliability of compilation.
The § Notable applications that use CMake section lists 70+ applications, most without references. Do we really want to keep adding stuff to that section until Wikipedia runs out of space and explodes? It looks more like a 'Oh, I know another app that uses it that's not yet listed' list. Make (software) doesn't feel the need to list everything... -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this whole article is just an advertisement. Really, why does an encyclopedia need to list features of every software package? Just leave cmake in the build generation tools article and delete this ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:E50:7016:99C0:7176:CC20:28EF ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CMake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
CPack is almost a stub. I'm not sure if it meets the notability criteria as a standalone article, with only one reference. Should it be merged to this subject article? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 03:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Mwtoews: I know about {{ code}} but I want few commands to be highlighted in language-wise way. Why not? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
|lang=cmake
parameter to achieve what you want. However, I found that add_executable(...)
is more consistent and readable than add_executable(...)
, so I picked the former. So why colourise these two inline words? I would normally choose to inline syntax highlight longer code segments to help distinguish between (e.g.) operators, variables, etc., but this consideration doesn't really apply to the two words. +
m
t
21:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@
Alexander Davronov: What did you mean when you wrote "the background is overburdened by bunch of unhighlighted code words"? Which words overburden which background?
—
Black Walnut
talk
13:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Peterl:
.. While it does configuration, I think it's clearer to say build-system generator
The current version is confusing because it makes you to think that it completely replaces tools like gnu make etc. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)«... A CMake Generator is responsible for writing the input files for a native build system.» [1]
03:01, May 26, 2021 - «CMake is definitely not functional. Having a function keyword does not make something functionalFrom the functional programming article: "In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm where programs are constructed by applying and composing functions. It is a declarative programming paradigm in which function definitions are trees of expressions that map values to other values, rather than a sequence of imperative statements which update the running state of the program."»