Re: Why Jam?

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 
that may
> > not be present on non-unix systems.
> 
> True, but: "jam" is only a build system, while "autoconf+automake" 
is
> 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
> http://www.boost.org/status/compiler_status.html.

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).

Bill Kempf