Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Alain Miniussi (Alain.Miniussi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 00:59:24

On 18/07/2017 23:18, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
> On 18/07/2017 20:08, Louis Dionne via Boost wrote:
>
>> (2) Prospective Boost developpers are sometimes driven away from 
>> submitting
>> because
>>        they would have to use Boost's build system, which they don't 
>> know.
>>
>
> I don't think a C++ programmer with a programming level to write a 
> Boost library would have any problem to write a Jamfile copy-pasting 
> from any library.
As long as it's very basic stuff, with no external dependencies, maybe, 
but that is true of any build system. And if it's not, you need to read 
a yet to be written documentation (I have heard of urban legends about 
people finding bjam documentation, or is it b2 ? and is it the same as 
the one embedded with boost ?).
And then,  sometime, it hang. Bjam is the only build system I got 
hanging, and the only support I could get from the bjam community could 
be summarized as "well, that's sad..." and "well, it works on my box, so 
who care... maybe Intel could modify their tools to accommodate?".
I agree with the copy-pasting though, without that you might forget a 
space somewhere, and the thing is space sensitive (and just because we 
got used to it does not mean it's normal).

Even if there was learning material, one should not have to learn a new 
boost specific build system just to contribute. And I don't think bjam 
can build anything else than a simple C++ project so it's not like you 
can capitalize on the time spent (I tried, then switched to CMake).

CMake could be a piece of junk, but it's a maintained, somehow 
documented, community supported piece of junk, that I can use on real 
projects.

If bjam was so great, it would be used by now.

So, now, about that doc generation thing...

Alain