Re: Boost/CMake

From: Christian Mazakas (christian.mazakas_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-22 16:26:18

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 7:28 PM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> It's interesting that nobody considers the possibility that b2 is in fact a
> better build system than CMake, and consequently, that switching from
> b2 to CMake will actually make things _worse_ in some, if not many,
> respects.
>
> There's this axiomatic assumption that dropping b2 will automatically
> improve things, somehow, and I don't think it's true or warranted.
>

For what it's worth, I'm not proposing anything concrete or actionable. But
I was, ironically,
musing the other day if b2 was holding Boost back from receiving more
outside contributions.

If we want Boost to survive and thrive, we need contributors. Potential
contributors don't know
b2, they know CMake. We can argue that yes, libraries support CMake and
contributors can
use that as their primary tooling but b2 will eventually worm its way into
the equation.

Whether or not b2 is a better build system is irrelevant because no one
knows it and no one
seems keen on learning it. It's relegated solely to Boost and its
developers.

All that being said, this was just something I was musing. I have no idea
in all actuality if completely
dropping b2 will bring contributors back to Boost. But I kind of agree with
Richard in that, I think it
is a turn off.

The usage of "warranted" stood out to me, btw. We should regularly evaluate
our tools and consider
technical costs and potential directions we might want to steer the
project. Where will Boost be and what
state will it be in five years from now? What state do we want it to be in?

- Christian