From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-08 02:50:53
----- Original Message -----
> 6 Jun 2001 19:29:49 +0400 David Abrahams ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> >Have you bothered to read my previous response to your suggestion
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/12558 where I mentioned that
> >boost membership rejected a requirement that anything as heavy-duty as
> >Python be installed for our build?
> But I'd rather install "heavy-duty" (and useful otherwise) thing like
> than totally useless *for me* Jam (because I'm using GNU make). In both
> I must to install something (well, Python is already installed :).
I tend to agree (I was pushing for Python myself when this discussion got
started). I was voted down, and with some valid reasons.
Another problem with Python is that it doesn't have a lot of the
infrastructure in place which would be needed to make an effective build
system. In other words, you'd need to solve a lot of the problems that the
Jam core has already solved (dependency checking, effective syntax for
users, different scoping rules...) before you could get to writing the
equivalent of all the Jam code that I've already written. Of course, the
latter process could be far more efficient because Python is a much more
expressive language than Jam. It's a trade-off. When this system is done
being constructed I'll know lots more about what one would need to do the
job well in Python.
BTW, if you had a Python-based build system would you still use GNU make?
> (I'm not criticizing your work.)
Thanks. Constructive criticisms are welcome and even desired, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk