Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: John McFarlane (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 01:48:05

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:59 PM Alain Miniussi via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
> ...

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.
>

I'm sure this is how a lot of C++ users out there feel.  Yes, anyone who
can learn C++ can learn another build system.  But why require more burden
than is strictly necessary?  CMake is the very clear trend across the
broader community.  Yes, it's far from perfect -- despite a monumental
clean-up effort.  But more developer systems have CMake installed already.
Even IDEs such as CLion and Visual Studio are putting their weight behind
it.  I am hugely appreciative of anyone who is willing to put aside their
own solutions in order to improve interoperability and simplicity.  This
will surely be a positive thing for Boost and C++ in the long term.