Re: A proposal for a modern build-system

From: Hassan Sajjad (hassan.sajjad069_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-22 09:59:40

>
> Also, personally, I don't think C++ is a good choice for a build system
> language. The build system files are unnecessarily verbose, and the
> build process seems too complex.
>

This is a subjective opinion. I appreciate it but would appreciate it more
if you could provide actionable feedback. I believe mine is the
easiest-to-use build system out there, especially for C++ development.

I'm strongly opposed to supporting a third build system. Especially
> given that the proposed build system is not mature and hasn't gained
> wide adoption. In fact, from the GitHub page it looks like a prototype
> rather than something that was battle tested. I see no documentation
> besides the readme with a few examples.
>

It is not battle-tested but ready for one. I feel it has now passed from
the training academy. More documentation would be added as more features
would be added.

This is a very ambitious time frame, IMO.

While converting SFML, more time was spent on understanding the current
build-description compared to expressing it in C++/HMake. SFML basic
configuration was achieved in 200 lines. It does not take much time to
write 200 lines.  And I have experience with Boost build-system b2.

If we do want to sponsor our build system advance, I think the money
> would be better spent on improving CMake support in Boost and in
> implementing features we need in CMake.
>

I feel that the return on investment that I offer is unmatched.  That's due
to a fundamentally better approach to my software.

Many libraries have first come to boost and then come to C++ standard. You
should sponsor me because if this succeeds, others might adopt it as
as-well. For even bigger projects like UE5, the advantage of compiling with
header-units would be bigger >4x compared to my estimate of >2.5x in
clean-build for Boost.

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 2:05 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 3/21/24 20:34, Hassan Sajjad via Boost wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Preface:
> >
> > C++20 modules and header-units are a great addition to C++. There are
> > numerous benefits of these. One of them is a faster compilation.
> > Conventional build-systems however are unable to benefit from C++20
> modules
> > or header-units. Boost current build-system b2 does not support C++20
> > modules or header-units. CMake does not support C++20 header-units
> > https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/25293.
> >
> > I developed the build-system HMake
> https://github.com/HassanSajjad-302/HMake.
> > It is in C++ and MIT Licenced. It supports drop-in header-files to
> > header-units replacement. While compilers support processing a
> header-file
> > as header-unit, no other build-system supports this feature.
> >
> > With this I compiled SFML with C++20 header-units
> >
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1555g6b/hmake_build_system_02_compiling_an_sfml_example/
> .
> > In the post, I mentioned that 2-3.5x speed-up was achieved but I did some
> > more testing recently and an even better speed-up of 2.7-4.7x was
> achieved
> > i.e., the speed of header-units is further improving with recent
> iterations.
> >
> > Proposal:
> >
> > I want to propose my build-system HMake for boost.
>
> I'm strongly opposed to supporting a third build system. Especially
> given that the proposed build system is not mature and hasn't gained
> wide adoption. In fact, from the GitHub page it looks like a prototype
> rather than something that was battle tested. I see no documentation
> besides the readme with a few examples.
>
> Also, personally, I don't think C++ is a good choice for a build system
> language. The build system files are unnecessarily verbose, and the
> build process seems too complex.
>
> > Besides its already
> > state-of-the-art C++20 modules and header-units support, it will be the
> > first to support https://lists.isocpp.org/sg15/2023/11/2106.php or
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/sg15/2023/11/2146.php if any of this gets
> > implemented. These papers present ideas for faster module adoption and
> > avoiding redundant module compilations. These need support from
> > build-system. This way boost could be a breeding ground for C++20 modules
> > adoption. Also, I have good experience with boost's current build-system
> b2
> > as a good portion of HMake's current API is inspired by it.
> >
> > Timeframe:
> >
> > I will complete this proposal in 3 months.
>
> This is a very ambitious time frame, IMO.
>
> > Deliverables:
> >
> > 1) 2-months: Boost basic configuration compiled with C++20 header-units.
> > This is more of a lone sprint.
> > 2) 3-months: All boost current configurations + new with header-units and
> > modules + tests and examples. This will require more active involvement
> by
> > the current maintainers.
> > I will give weekly updates here and will make a video after 2 months
> > presenting the progress made. This will be to help other contributors so
> > they can ensure that their library is fully supported.
> >
> > Cost:
> >
> > Standard C++ Developer Compensation for 3 months (Negotiable). Payments
> are
> > to be issued monthly. But you can back out at any point in case you are
> > unsatisfied with development speed or direction.
>
> I'm not the one to make funding decisions, but I don't see why Boost
> would pay for this work. It's not like Boost is in dire need of a new
> build system.
>
> If we do want to sponsor our build system advance, I think the money
> would be better spent on improving CMake support in Boost and in
> implementing features we need in CMake.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>