Re: Fwd: A proposal for a modern build-system

From: Hassan Sajjad (hassan.sajjad069_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-26 12:55:10

>
>  Boost does not pay people (as far as I know). You're asking for
> compensation in the first message, but nodoby will pay it, and nodoby
> asked for it.

I look forward to the official word on my proposal. Without compensation,
it will not be possible for me to work on it.

I agree with others that three month of development are a bit too
> optimistic, and also in this case we must maintain two different build
> systems instead that one.
>

I would like to term the timeframe as realistic and not too optimistic at
all.

- In the thread I've read many messages like "b2 can do this", "well,
> also hmake", but no messages like "hmake can do it and b2 it's not able
> to do it" "oh really? I'd love to have it!". I don't see any important
> use case that's requested by the community and that hmake will provide
> while b2 not. So the community wil use hmake to do the same things that
> at the moment it does with b2.

b2 does not support header-units and modules and I believe the community is
interested in these C++20 features.

And, repeating myself, I can see that new features actually not
> supported by b2, pratically modules, are easier to be implemented in b2
> instead of using another build system

I think you are wrong in this evaluation. Boost build maintainer could
comment on that.

I strongly think that instead of a new build
> system I'll spend some effort, if necessary, in improving existing
> alternatives, like cmake, that are already widely used by the developer
> community around the world.

You won't be able to compile Boost with modules / header-units  in CMake or
b2 in the next 3 months. I strongly think that I am offering the best
return on investment.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:24 AM Daniele Lupo via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 23/03/2024 13:16, Hassan Sajjad wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Could you please confirm if my proposal is under consideration? If so,
> > when can I expect an update regarding its status?
> >
> >
> Sorry for the delay, I had personal issues during those days.
>
> I've read the thread, and since now I can't see any serious issue or
> problem that make me think that the actual build system must be
> replaced. Maybe updated, but not replaced.
>
> For explaining more in detail my point of view (that, I will not ever
> repeat too many times, it's my personal one, so other people can have
> other ideas about it):
>
> - Boost does not pay people (as far as I know). You're asking for
> compensation in the first message, but nodoby will pay it, and nodoby
> asked for it.
> - I agree with others that three month of development are a bit too
> optimistic, and also in this case we must maintain two different build
> systems instead that one.
> - In the thread I've read many messages like "b2 can do this", "well,
> also hmake", but no messages like "hmake can do it and b2 it's not able
> to do it" "oh really? I'd love to have it!". I don't see any important
> use case that's requested by the community and that hmake will provide
> while b2 not. So the community wil use hmake to do the same things that
> at the moment it does with b2.
> - There's already another build system, even if not much official, and
> that's cmake. It works well and it's widely used, and that's supported
> by many package managers, like vcpkg. I have to say that hmake will not
> be used by them, so it will be limited to the scope of build boost like
> b2 actually does. Even in this case, it does not add anything.
>
> Basically, in the entire thread, in my opinion, there's not a single
> point that le me think that hmake will make the like easier to boost
> community. At most we'll have another tool that make the same things.
> And, repeating myself, I can see that new features actually not
> supported by b2, pratically modules, are easier to be implemented in b2
> instead of using another build system and obligate the entire community
> to learn another tool for a feature that for now only a few of them will
> use. In addition to this, I strongly think that instead of a new build
> system I'll spend some effort, if necessary, in improving existing
> alternatives, like cmake, that are already widely used by the developer
> community around the world.
>
> Regards
>
> Daniele Lupo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>