Re: Why Jam?

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 13:08:36

--- In boost_at_y..., "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > Replacing the shell with perl or python would be great for me 
(for my 
> > interests outside of work), but still wouldn't allow me to use 
> > autotools in my work environment. :(
> 
> So what approach to the problem autoconf addresses *would* work in
> your environment?

One that doesn't require an invasive installation, meaning one that 
doesn't modify my operating system at all.
 
> > And nearly anything would be better then m4.
> 
> "Nearly anything" won't necessarily accomplish what m4 accomplishes.
> What would be some viable alternatives?

Huh?  m4 is just a scripting language that does macro expansion.  
Perl could have been used instead (and actually was considered).  Or 
python.  Heck, even Java would work for this even though Java isn't a 
scripting language.

> > > Boost.Thread is acutally what I'm primarily interested in using.
> > 
> > Tell me what I can do (besides write an autoconf script, which I 
> > can't do) to help you out here and I'll be very glad to do it.
> 
> Installation must be as simple as "./configure;make;make install". 
It
> doesn't have to be those commands exactly, but that spirit of
> simplicity must be intact. If Boost can get there with Jam, that's
> fine by me.

I'm sure that eventually we will (though not necessarily just with 
Jam).  However, that time is too distant to be of interest to you.  
What I really meant was that I can provide help/information on how 
you can write the scripts you need to accomplish your goals.  You 
could then contribute this to the Boost effort for others.

Bill Kempf