From: Anthony Williams (anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 08:36:30
> > "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 :-(
Especially if the build tool requires any setting up --- when bjam was first
introduced, I had such trouble getting it to build things that I reverted back
to using the makefiles. Thankfully, it all works quite well now.
As an aside: I'm sure it's been covered before, but what _are_ the key benefits
we get from using jam over make?
-- Anthony Williams Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd. Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk