Re: [Boost-users] BoostCon & Bjam

From: Brian Davis (bitminer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-12 14:03:19

I am with Tim on the documentation.  I too feel that bjam needs better
documentation and also more examples of simple, medium, and complex
projects.  There are some issues with bjam in my opinion having used it for
about a year now (longer when I consider we were integrating it with our
existing build system) on what I would consider a large scale project.
These issues are as follows:

1) Lack documentation concerning the pitfalls of using bjam.  Basically
common issues people can run into.  There are lessons learned from my use I
think people may be interested in.
2) Documentation needs to be modified to show use and examples in small
(hello world), medium (my wonder wigit), and large (compiling chrooted
images on multiple different embedded target computers, and multiple vendors
of Linux while supporting Windows builds for shared code).  I think this
would expose what the current documentation is good at and where it is
lacking.
3) Generators seem too complex to construct from scratch
4) Generators need to be compiled/interpreted  each build, seemingly,
slowing down  the  build process.

I am willing to help in these areas.  Like I said at boostcon "Lets fix the
problem" if we can.  If it is felt that bjam must be scraped in favor of a
simpler build system, one that may be maintained by others then I would like
to see a build system that is as elegant and syntactically powerful as bjam.

Brian

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Jeff Garland <azswdude_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Tim St. Clair <timothysc_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks -
> >
> >     I've heard various mumblings from sources regarding the future of
> > BJAM, and I would honestly like to know what the verdict is.
>
>
>
> Dave Abrahams suggested in the Future of Boost session that it seems
> likely Boost will move away from bjam at some future point.  When that will
> be isn't clear.
>
>
> >
> >
> > I've also heard a lot of smack about it, which I consider to be more
> > dogma then anything.  Also, I must say, as a cross platform developer I have
> > yet to find it's equal, and would perfer to illuminate
> >
>
> It may be, but for every person that thinks like you there's some or more
> that have issues with bjam.
>
>
> > dogma where it may exist, vs. throwing up our arms hold heartedly.  If
> > that means developing a users guide to help "boost" them into bjam, then I
> > would be happy to contribute.
> >
>
>
> I think the predominate issue is the maintenance of the build system
> itself -- there are very few people that can maintain boost build and we'd
> rather not be in the tools business where other options exist.
>
> HTH,
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>