I'm only asking it to do what it was originally intended to do, as a stand-alone tool, as I described in the example that I gave.on Sun Oct 07 2007, Ray Lambert <codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:... I do want to say something regarding my theory of make obsolescence, ... I mean this in the sense of it being unfit for the job (because the rest of the world has moved forward and it hasn't).It all turns on what job you're asking it to do. Cmake doesn't ask very much of make.
Sorry, but I still can't accept that as a valid analogy. Assembler is ultimately fundamental to all SW and it is what it is because it is dictated by the hardware (processor). Seeing as it's highly unlikely that we'll see any revolutionary microprocessor-level changes in the foreseeable future (perhaps not even in our lifetimes), assembler in a very real sense is virtually unable to become obsolete (in the absence of revolutionary microprocessor changes). So, your analogy is effectively trying to disprove my argument about 'make' obsolescence by comparing it to something that cannot become obsolete. To me, that amounts to apples and oranges.My analogy to high-level language compilers and assemblers stands.
Isn't he? Perhaps I misunderstood that then? I thought this was a main point of the re-write. Perhaps Volodya can clarify?... Hence, I tend to agree with Volodya's proposed solution to replace the jam-related parts with a re-write in a modern, popular, and well-supported language such as Python.He's not talking about replacing the jam part, FWIW.
I meant the Python re-write, which I guess is actually two milestones away? (Sorry, I forget the sequence at the moment.) I guess my comment was also some of the latter as well though.... If the need isn't so urgent, I would recommend that Boost wait and see how the next BB milestone develops and what comes out of it.Is that milestone special in some way, or is that just a general call for patience?
Yes, perhaps a bit dramatic. :) I'm referring to what I perceive as discarding (eating?) the current "make-less" capability in exchange for cmake's "make-dependent" capability. Which, as I discussed in some detail, would be a regrettable loss IMO.Most importantly, I would recommend *not* "cannibalizing" BB, in the way being discussed, for the sake of Boost. I feel that more will be lost than gained by doing so.That sounds awfully dramatic. Who is talking about "cannibalizing?" Are other build tools about to eat Boost.Build?