Boost logo

Boost :

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-20 08:36:23

Martin Bonner wrote:

>>> (
>>>These are updated from previously.
>>Wow, harsh. The numbers aside, I think his commentary is rather
> Well, without the numbers, I agree. But the numbers do rather back him up
> (except that BoostBuild does seem to be marginally quicker than Scons on
> three out of four tests, whereas he describes it as "Slower even than
> Scons!").
> Are there any known optimization oportunities in BoostBuild?
> Are the results an artifact of his test set up?

Well, even the numbers aside, the main theme in this scons-vs.-(b)jam
thread seems more to be about usability (syntax, documentation, etc.)
and only to a lesser degree performance, or else scons wouldn't even
be on the list at all.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at