Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-18 12:55:57
On 05/17/2014 01:05 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 18:48:58 -0400
> Sohail Somani <sohail_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> It may just be that CMake is chosen for C++ projects you follow in
>> the future. If so, you might still find room for interesting things
>> in the build system world. For example, there is currently a shake vs
>> ninja benchmark battle  going on where someone like you could
> I'm not interested in performance alone. I want to work on generalizing
> nodes beyond just files and aliases. For example, merging configuration
> into DAG proper.
Are there any projects you know of that are attempting to do this? I
would be interested. ClearCase Configuration Records and clearmake
comes to my mind, but it is no real option for most developers.
I agree that CMake and other build system generators have focus on the
the wrong problems. However they follow laws of evolution and survive
as developers are unable to smoothly integrate the best build systems
into their favorite IDEs. Developers in the same project tends to have
varying preferences regarding IDEs, so it is a hard sell for any build
systems that don't fill this gap. Build system generators like CMake
attempts to do so, while throwing a lot of other worthy build system
goals out the window.
I think much could be gained if required interfaces between build
systems, IDEs and tool configurations could be identified, standardized
and supported. But I am not holding my breath.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk