Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe

Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Bruno Santos (bsantos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-20 05:53:06

Ter, 2010-07-20 Ã s 10:55 +0200, Marco Guazzone escreveu:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Boosters,
> >
> > I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you
> > want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which
> > is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer
> > good.
> >
> > First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names
> > proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where
> > many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and
> > become upset.
> >
> > Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which
> > is not true.
> >
> > For those reasons, Rene and I have decided that "bjam.exe" should go. We're thinking
> > about naming the executable simply "build.exe", since no other build tool bothered to
> > take it.
> >
> > Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
> >
> 
> IMHO, "build" is a very generic name.
> 
> Maybe something like "bbuild" (where the first "b" stands for Boost)
> might just help me to remember this is a boost related tool
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Marco
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Agree. It's too much generic.

Some additional suggestions:

boostb
bmake
bbv2
mkbb