RE: [boost] Re: Jamfile vs. jamfile vs. Jamfile.jam vs jamfile.jam(was...**type traits broken **)

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 07:46:50

I am reassured that I am not alone in getting the "my brain is full" feeling.
Dealing with ones problem domain is enough.

Many Windows users are not even familiar with Makefile.

Adding any sort of 'jam' sounds too messy to contemplate!

Many tools are almost certainly very useful, but they need far more selling than
writers and expert users acknowledge.

Paul

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:uy98h95tf.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> >
> > I'm mostly convinced, but there's also the familiarity issue to
> > consider. People are used to 'Makefile'. A guy just came up to me
> > today and told me he put boost aside because building involved a
> > program with an unfamiliar name, 'bjam'. I'm not kidding. He didn't
> > look past the name :(
>
> I have seen this mentality over and over. Unfamiliarity is a big issue when
> it comes to adopting new libraries - particularly if that unfamiliarity is
> in the building of the library. It is a sad-but-true fact :-(
>
> -- Craig
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>