Re: [boost] Why Boost.Build?

Subject: Re: [boost] Why Boost.Build?
From: Fabio Fracassi (f.fracassi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-30 12:16:41

On 30/3/2011 16:35, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Dave Abrahams<dave_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>> [...] almost everything in a Jamfile has to be done declaratively
>> and everything must be parameterized to accept multiple build options,
>> instead of accepting straightforward procedural code and dealing with
>> a concrete set of build properties corresponding to the
>> currently-selected configuration. [...]
>
> I've rarely heard the criticism of a build being too declarative!
>
> Having created large builds in the past (using Make and Ant) and now
> working with CMake, I feel that most builds in fact *lack* in their
> declarative nature, which makes them intractable when they grow large
> enough. CMake IMHO falls into that trap as well, relying too heavily
> on procedural code (with poor syntax too IMHO). Yes, build
> extensibility and flexibility do require a full featured scripting
> environment, but it's better exposed via a declarative facade. Too
> often the build is not even aware of the intended modularization of
> the software being built, and the dependencies of these
> modules/libraries/subsystems/etc... to document and enforce them for
> instance. (getting back to just lurking now)
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe&  other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

Full Ack.