From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-21 10:37:36
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 08:45 PM 10/12/01 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> >> Well, from a Windows perspective, the Jam solution is lightyears
> >> better then make + autoconf, since we don't have autoconf and though
> >> we do have variants of make they are all a pain to maintain in
> >> comparison to Jam.
> >Let's not forget the big picture. From a Windows perspective nothing
> >prebuilt libraries. :-)
> If there was just one version of one compiler involved, that wouldn't be
> too difficult, although there are a lot of build variants possible. It
> gets really messy providing prebuilt libs when there are multiple versions
> of multiple compilers.
Yes, I agree. I was simply presenting the ordinary Windows developer's point
of view. Boost's usability would be greatly improved, and the effort
necessary is, IMHO, very much worth it.
*x developers are familiar with downloading .src.tar.gz packages and typing
./configure && make install. Windows developers are familiar with
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk