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
> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk