gdb-dashboard

let's look at why with CMake, which fails all of them. For #1, CMake's language started as a limited language for enumerating lists. (Hence, CMakeLists.txt is the file name.) And yet, it's grown to be as general-purpose as possible. Why? Because when you need an if statement, nothing else will do, and when you need a loop, nothing else will do. And that brings us to #2: if CMake's language started limited, are there still places where it's limited? I argue yes, and I point to the article where it says that your couldn't dynamically call functions until recently. There are probably other places. For #3, CMake's whole model precludes it. CMake generates the build upfront then expects another build system to actually execute it. There is no changing the build without regenerating it. (And even then, CMake did a poor job until the addition of `--fresh`.) A fully dynamic build should be able to add targets and make others targets depend on those new targets dynamically, among other things. For #4, obviously CMake limits what tasks can do because Ninja and Make limit tasks to running commands. As another example, to implement a LaTeX target, you technically need a while loop to iterate until a fixed point. To do that with Make and Ninja, you have to jump through hoops or use an external script that may not work on all platforms. CMake obviously fails #5, and to see how much other build systems fail it, just look for comments pouring hate on those build systems. CMake fails the most, but I haven't seen one that passes yet. As an example, CMake barely got a debugger. Wow! Cool! It's been 20 years! My build system will have a debugger in public release #2 (one after the MVP) that will be capable of outputting to multiple TTY's like gdb-dashboard. [2] They should have had this years ago! Should other comments suggest specific build systems, like the one that suggested Bazel, judge them by this list. Some will be better than others. None will pass everything, IMO, which is why I'm making my own. [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Sg14jNbBb-8 [2]: https://github.com/cyrus-and/gdb-dashboard

hich makes it look like it's retrieving 4/8 bytes from 0x12345, and using that as the address of the breakpoint.) Agreed, I never understood why that was necessary. It is really annoying. Perhaps someone wanted to avoid a conflict if you had a symbol named "0x12345"? (can you even do that?) > - Starting gdb with a binary and passing arguments to it --- you'd expect it to be smart enough to realise that anything after the executable name should be the arguments to the debuggee and not the debugger, but it isnt. I recently learned that gdb has a neat option called --args, that does exactly this: gdb --args program arg1 arg2 GDB feels quite similar to VIM to me: you have to spent some time to get used to it, it has some warts but it is very flexible and useful if you know it.