From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-18 11:14:44
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Not to throw dirt at GNU Make, but it's just too hard and too painful
> to maintain complex project builds with it. Whether by hand or with
> Compare that to the trivial Jamfiles that are smart enough to figure
> out what to do when you say:
> exe main : main.cpp ;
> And be cross-platform right off the bat.
I don't think it's fair to compare (GNU) make with boost.build,
as 'make' itself operates more on the level of bjam. I'm fairly
positive that something akin to boost.build could be written on
top of 'make', too, i.e. a set of makefiles, together with
conventions how to use them.
In fact, as much problems as there exist with (GNU) make, the
single most important advantage it has is that there are more people knowing
it (its syntax, semantics, flaws, and ways to work with and around them).
Throwing that advantage away shouldn't be taken lightly.
(And, as it happens, the single most important disadvantage I see
with bjam is exactly the same: new syntax, new (and grossly underdocumented)
semantics, and very few people who really understand all that.)
-- ...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