Is it functional as eg. Haskell is, or is it functional as a tool that does its job well?

    SET(i 0)
    while(i LESS count)
        LIST(GET extras 0 file)
        LIST(REMOVE_AT extras 0)
        LIST(APPEND extras "${root}/${F}/${file}")
        MATH(EXPR i "${i}+1")
    endwhile()

"Functional" with a FU. It's also buggy as hell.

How is it buggy? CMake is actually very reliable.

The tool has one critical function: to generate files that calculate dependencies properly.

It does not do this. Been using it since 2.6. Get one of their super-tweaky ever-changing commands wrong and it doesn't generate dependencies AT ALL on some platforms. Sure, your project builds. And it's also a poisoned dart trap for anyone who attempts to modify your code.

A quick skim of the bug list is enough to make any truly-fastidious engineer's sphincter clinch. When you have over 1000 bugs that aren't even assigned to a dev ... in a dev tool ... hoo boy.

http://www.cmake.org/Bug/my_view_page.php

> A quick skim of the bug list is enough to make any truly-fastidious engineer's sphincter clinch. When you have over 1000 bugs that aren't even assigned to a dev ... in a dev tool ... hoo boy.

Er, what? Chromium has over 50000 unassigned bugs. Any software that sees a lot of use is going to have lots of bugs, and depending on the workflow sometimes none of them will be assigned.

I asked you "how is it buggy?" and your answer essentially is "It's buggy, trust me."... weasel answers, much?

I'm by no means a fan of cmake. But if I use and trust it, yet can generate much better criticism than you do, how are you going to convince anyone they shouldn't be using it?

The bug list for a dev tool, that devs use, containing bugs meticulously entered by devs, carries weight. I also provided sample code above, so I clearly use the tool. And I've written and published scripts that show that it does not generate dependencies reliably.

"CMake is actually very reliable" --scrollaway

That's not criticism. That's just an opinion. No more or less valid than mine. But certainly less supported by evidence.

If you want something functional (written in Haskell), try Shake (http://www.shakebuild.com).

"Shake build systems are Haskell programs, but can be treated as a powerful version of make with slightly funny syntax. The build system requires no significant Haskell knowledge, and is designed so that most features are accessible by learning the "Shake syntax", without any appreciation of what the underlying Haskell means."

The latter. (In the parent's opinion)

Yes.