Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Build on IBM, SGI & HP

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
> beats
>  >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
double-clicking. :-)

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.