Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe

Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-20 06:05:52

Hello,

"build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution",
and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like 
OSs.

So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace. 

For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build 
should be
something like

boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear.

Artyom

----- Original Message ----
> From: Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 11:45:07 AM
> Subject: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Thanks,
> Volodya
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe  & other changes: 
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>