From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 20:14:42
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
>>> It seems boost.build is becoming a real burden on boost. I would
>>> really like to see boost developing great tools as it develops great
>> Even after reading this over multiple times it sounds like two contradicting
>> statements. Do you suggest boost to move on in the build tool business or not ?
> Sorry, it really is contradicting. What I meant is that there seem to
> be a lot of interest in getting out of tool development in boost. But
> I really think we should continue developing those tools. And I think
> so because boost is really different from what is there outside.
> Boost.build seems to me as something unique. Sure, there are a lot of
> things that needs improvement, but the know-how boost has acquired in
> boost.build is quite big and I believe using this knowledge to improve
> bbv2 is better in the long term.
I don't quite agree. There are very few people who know boost.build (v2).
Many less than people who understand other build systems. That's one
of the reasons things are so fragile.
Also, I can't say it often enough: I'm not arguing against any of these
tools. They certainly have merit. But boost.org itself has a scope into
which these tools don't fall, so I'd prefer them to be developed elsewhere,
to keep people focused on "C++ libraries", as opposed to "things we can
do better than the rest of the world".
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk