From: John (EBo) David (ebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-16 17:17:22
Jeff Garland wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
> > One other point that came across from a point made by Beman in a private
> > email on another subject - some commercial users will simply not use boost
> > if it relies on any tools not installed by default on the target
> > platform - that means no python among other things - sorry :-(
> This is a difficult standard to impose on boost. Aside from the various
> Unix flavors, I don't know of a single platform used for development that
> doesn't require the installation of tools on top of the platform. To
> develop C++ on Windows I have to install Visual C++ or some other Windows
> development environment. If I am doing commercial development, I will need
> to install a design tool, configuration management tool, bug reporting tool,
> project tracking tool, above and beyond the compiler.
I may be misreading this but I think you missed a subtle point. The
installation tools (make, install_shield, ...) useually *are* part of
the base install.
This one is closer to home maybe. I don't know Python. I do however
know Perl. Now I know that there has been some sort of holy war over
Python/Perl for YEARS. I've never followed the details and frankly I am
not much interested. On the otherhand, if I have to install yet another
language to even compile and install a set of C++ libraries for C++
programs I personally am going to find it anoying. Now if this ScCons
(or whatever it was called) is *so* much better than autoconfig (which
generates a portable sh script), automake, etc. then I'll take the time
to learn and switch. But I for one am going to be a bit of a hard
sell... How is it *so* much better?
In the *NIX world, Borne Shell (sh) as I recall is the defacto standard
that is installed on every implementation, and csh is a close second.
In the dos world, you still have batch files (.bat), etc... Yea they
are not pretty, but they basically work everywhere. What I would love
to see is ScCons do whatever magic that it need using
Python/Perl/whatever then produce sh, csh, bat, ... so to build and
install does not require to much extra, but then I am sure I am a
manority here and probably just being some old fuddyduddy...
> I'm not saying that it won't discourage some commercial organizations from
> using boost if they have to install python to use boost. I think it will.
and it will discurage developers from dealing with it to. Now I can see
some out there thinking "get with the malenium man", but these tools are
for the general comunity not just the python crowd (with the exception
of the boost/python specific stuff)
> However, there are some commercial organizations that won't use boost if
> they have to COMPILE it.
That is part of what platform specific binaries are made for.
> In addition, some organizations have policies
> against using libraries if they can't PAY someone for support.
That is part of what survice oriented companies that package, ship, and
support public domain produces (Like RedHad, SuSE, etc.) are for...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk