Re: Boost/CMake

From: Alain O' Miniussi (alain.miniussi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-22 09:24:52

----- On May 22, 2024, at 4:28 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost boost_at_[hidden] wrote:

> Christian Mazakas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:55 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
> ...
>> > 3. Submit pull requests to all libs to update their build scripts for cmake
>> 
>> This will definitely be the most time-consuming part but if we did a library a
>> day every day, we'd be done in like a year!
> 
> We're already done because all of Boost builds (and installs) with CMake.
> 
>> In general, I agree with Richard's sentiment. b2 is holding Boost back...
> 
> It's interesting that nobody considers the possibility that b2 is in fact a
> better build system than CMake,

Which, after so many years, could be an interesting information by itself... 
Plus the fact that it failed to replace CMake out there.
Maybe it's better, but either it's not better enough, either there is something preventing it to to take over.
But in both cases, as the philosopher once said, "This not my war".

> and consequently, that switching from
> b2 to CMake will actually make things _worse_ in some, if not many,
> respects.

I have to use CMake in other project, know where to find the doc, and anything I learn fixing CMake related problem will be useful to me in other context. I'll probably forget whatever I learn about b2.

> There's this axiomatic assumption that dropping b2 will automatically
> improve things, somehow, and I don't think it's true or warranted.

Assuming they both suck equally (they're build system, they all suck), it's same to assume one is better known than the other.

PS: my contributions to boost are limited enough (b2 being just one small reason) that my opinion can be safely disregarded. 

> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost