Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-20 11:27:24

----- Original Message -----
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>

> Jam was never meant as a solution to autoconf, it was meant as a
> solution to make.  If/when we determine there's a real need for
> dynamic configuration I hope we address it in the same way and with
> the same goals as we addressed the need for a build tool.

And, BTW, let me point out that Boost.Build has many positive qualities
which aren't available with make:

* high-level compiler/platform-independent specification of build properties
and requirements
* direct support for build variants
* management of dependencies within a large project (and soon, between
projects)

We are going through a transitional phase right now with Boost.Build: we're
working on V2 and on integrating changes that perforce has made to the Jam
source into Boost.Jam. That creates some tension with the idea of supporting
the V1 codebase and doing things to make it easier to work with, since
nobody wants to do work that's going to be thrown out, or that's going to be
redundant as soon as we move to the new codebase. I hope that as we make the
transition in the next few months, most of the associated rough spots will
be significantly smoothed out.

Regards,
Dave