Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-21 12:42:32
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Eric Niebler
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:46 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
> On 7/20/2010 1:06 PM, John Maddock wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> The name bjam is no doubt hard-coded in many build scripts and
> >> renaming it will create a lot of unnecessary bugs.
> > Good point.
> +1 for leaving it "bjam".
Despite the original name being 'silly', I doubt if changing it now will be worth the costs and confusion.
Would it be better to document 'Boost.Bjam' / 'Boost.Jam' (with just pointers to bjam / Boost.Build docs) so that users
do eventually find what they want to know?
Perhaps acknowledging the choice of name as 'purely historical' would also help - people always respond well to 'why'.
PS If this is Boost.Build then would boost.exe be a good name? Typing 'boost' would be good for brand building ;-)
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk