From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 16:33:24
Doug Gregor wrote:
> On May 9, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>> Doug Gregor wrote:
>> Why should we give up the current:
>> cd boost-root
>> bjam msvc-8.0 test install
>> bjam msvc-7.1 test install
>> bjam gcc-3.4.5 test install
>> (ignoring that those could be done in one command for comparison sake)
> Well, because it doesn't make the simple case simple.
> (1) Run CMake graphical configuration tool to generate makefiles/
> (2) Load project into your favorite IDE
> (3) Hit "build" in your IDE
> CMake is about integrating well with the way the user develops code.
> That might be makefiles, VC++ projects, XCode projects, whatever.
> Having used CMake, bjam, and autotools, I've found CMake to be by far
> the easiest system for *users* to get up and running with.
Yes, but end-users are not the only audience we have to account for.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that: It is worth
making Boost developers' life harder in order to make a particular
subset of end-users life easier.
Note: I happen to be one of the end-users of Boost.Build, so I avoid
using IDEs, in particular VisualStudio, because they are some of the
best examples of bad interface design (and I have yet to find an IDE
that did not reduce programmer productivity). So in the discussions
about switching build systems, I have to personally consider that I
would stop helping in the maintenance of the build infrastructure for
Boost. Which brings up the point, or maybe it was already mentioned,
that any new technologies we consider, we have to consider the within
Boost expertise available to maintain the new system.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk