From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-20 09:20:00
--- In boost_at_y..., "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins_at_v...> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:16:22AM -0500, nbecker_at_f... wrote:
> > Portability. autoconf+automake require lots of support tools
> > not be present on non-unix systems.
> True, but: "jam" is only a build system, while "autoconf+automake"
> a *configure* and build (and install) system. They are vastly
> different in scope.
> As for the support tools: newer apples (MacOSX) have them, cygwin is
> available for MSwin, I believe that BeOS has them, and of course all
> unix systems have them. That covers the systems listed in
Many of us work in shops that restrict what can be installed on a
system. It's easier to convince them to let us install a single,
small executable (jam.exe), or in some cases just boot strap Jam with
out their knowledge, then it is to convince them we need to install a
monolithic system such as cygwin. More over, why force a Unix
interface (cygwin) on non-Unix programmers?
The reality is, many of us simply can't use autoconf+make, so we
don't need other reasons such as the other benefits of Jam (recursive
make problems don't exist, easier to write then Make files, etc).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk