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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk