0

As a python user, if I require a module pip install whatever, it magically handles dependencies and such. Python spoiled me! I'm NOT prepared for the world of C++!

It has taken me some considerable effort just to simplify this question, so bear with me:

Essentially if I create an open source package (and it involves QT, but I suppose it could involve anything) I would like to know of an OS-independent standard of some sort that at least simplifies the dependencies issue, so if another developer gets involved he can quickly get up and running with the source.

Using pip as an example, if there are cascading dependencies, all will be added, and the developer quickly assembles his rocketship with auto-delivered parts and goes to the moon.

I haven't found a similar solution with c++, that honors platforms, but then again I am very new to this language. This question itself might suggest great misunderstanding of the subject.

Can someone set me straight on this?

Pipsqweek
  • 404
  • 4
  • 19
  • Nope, those things must not be easy under any circumstances, not for C++, and especially not for Qt :D – dtech Dec 31 '16 at 00:56
  • I think you mean you're *not* prepared for the world of C++? – Willis Blackburn Dec 31 '16 at 00:59
  • CMake is a utility that can take some of the pain out of building C++ projects. It's basically a higher-level make that knows about project structure rather than just building this from that using some command. If you write a library for C++, you can contribute a module to the CMake project that will help people integrate your library into their CMake builds. – Willis Blackburn Dec 31 '16 at 01:01
  • @WillisBlackburn that is what I meant thanks for catching that. – Pipsqweek Dec 31 '16 at 01:07
  • So is it a confused question or have I successfully discovered my first major c++ hurdle? – Pipsqweek Dec 31 '16 at 01:08
  • 2
    It's not a confused question. You're entering a world of pain. – Willis Blackburn Dec 31 '16 at 01:10
  • That was a genuinely funny comment that got a real-life LOL out of me. I didn't just write LOL, but I laughed for 5 seconds. Like, "Welcome to c++, biotch!" – Pipsqweek Dec 31 '16 at 01:14
  • My practice is "**don't have dependencies**". Have the sources, build everything, link statically, everything is in the executable, it just works, can't be broken, life is good. At times it can be like childbirth, and the child doesn't want to come out. You follow some guide but stuff just won't build or run, and the error message is cryptic even to the guy who wrote it. – dtech Dec 31 '16 at 01:50
  • @ddriver I get where you're coming from, I really do, but considering the question is tagged qt there's not much point in advising against dependencies. That ship has sailed. – MrEricSir Dec 31 '16 at 04:45
  • @MrEricSir - you can build Qt to work with no external dependencies. Obviously, you pretty much can't do anything without depending on some library, point is that your executable is self-contained and doesn't rely on any external dependencies. Especially for Qt, which is a major ass pain to deploy with all its dependencies when it uses dynamic linking. – dtech Dec 31 '16 at 04:49
  • It's the responsibility of the package manager of the OS. I am tired of these developers who want me to deal with the crappy package manager of each their language (and some of them have several package managers). Per-language package manager is easy for developers, but it's dumps the complexity on the user. – Velkan Dec 31 '16 at 08:00

0 Answers0