Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Jeff Trull (edaskel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-16 20:33:43

I think Bob has captured my feelings on this very well.  In particular:

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Bob Summerwill <bob_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> CMake has "won".    It isn't perfect, but it's the utterly dominant defacto
> standard.   Unless there is an amazingly compelling reason not to migrate,
> putting together a CMake migration plan makes good sense.
>

I don't know Boost Build very well (I'm trying to learn more), but it seems
like a perfectly fine build system.  I wouldn't be surprised to discover
that it's superior to CMake, since I'm very aware of that tool's many
flaws.  However, CMake is *good enough*, and far, far more popular than
bjam.  In fact, I believe Boost itself is the only bjam project I've ever
used.  To someone who comes from other open source projects, it creates a
barrier to adoption and also bolsters the image of Boost as arcane and hard
to understand.

And the same kind of thinking should be applied to issue tracking, version
> control, automation, etc, IMHO.
>
>
Ditto.  In the web development world, the popularity of some default
choices for each infrastructure element makes it fast to get new developers
up to speed and makes a project look "friendly".  If we want to attract
more users and developers, we should do the same.

Jeff