Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-21 14:23:20
On 07/20/2010 12:45 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 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
Please, leave it as it is. As others have noted, the change will add
problems to maintainers of various scripts, which I'm sure we all are
more or less.
I'm not convinced that the change of the name we all got used to to
whatever other name will reduce the confusion. There is quite an amount
of information online, including articles, blogs, forum and ML posts,
about the tool being referred to as bjam. All this information is easily
searchable with Google (e.g. typing "bjam" brings references to bjam and
Boost.Build at the top of the page). In fact, from my perspective, the
name is tightly associated with Boost.Build already, and there is no
need to come up with another alternative.
Besides, as far as I understand, the jamfiles syntax is based on the Jam
language, so the name bjam does have its merit, unless you also want to
switch to another language with the rename (in which case I would vote
for dropping it altogether in favor of a more widespread build system,
such as CMake).
If the naming issue does arise often with users, I would suggest
correcting the docs. Perhaps, Boost.Build and Boost.Jam docs (and, I
suppose, libraries as such) should be just merged.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk