Re: Bjam in C++?

From: Christopher Currie (codemonkey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-25 11:59:12

David Abrahams wrote:
> Aside from other concerns voiced here, I am not sure how extensive you
> want to make these changes, but I think any major expenditure of
> effort on the low-level build tool is a waste of time in the long run.
> Fundamentally, the original product from Perforce is not very good
> software, and it's unreasonably difficult to create good software in
> the Jam language. We've corrected a lot of that, but I think we're
> near the end of that road. I really think in the long run we ought to
> be thinking in terms of preserving the architecture of Boost.Build,
> but of dumping the Jam heritage.

Does this mean dumping the Jam syntax as well? I'm in the process of 
expending non-trivial amount of time and energy convincing my peers to 
abandon Make in favor of BJam, a process that will be considerably 
harder if I must admit that BJam is considered by its developers to be a 
dead end.

-- 
Christopher Currie <codemonkey_at_[hidden]>