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@gmail.com> wrote:


On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Tim St. Clair <timothysc@gmail.com> 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@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users