| My first question is if ninja is so slow, can it go faster? HMake does fast compilation using C++20 header-units. CMake and Ninja cannot support that. See https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/24616 and https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-extensions-to-export-macros-preprocessor-st... . | And, my perception is that building boost doesn't really take that long (on Linux at least) so it's not obvious that being faster is so sought after. Boost + Tests and Examples HMake adoption could be a green signal for other mega projects for which the header-units advantage increases further. Like boost had been a flag-bearer for multiple modern C++ features in the past. On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 4:50 PM Nigel Stewart <nigels.com@gmail.com> wrote:
| With concerted, unanimous effort, it would take | less than month to complete this.
My first question is if ninja is so slow, can it go faster?
The reason I ask is that I use cmake/ninja day to day. It seems pretty optimal on the face of it. (The CPU cores seem generally busy with compiler and linker work) And I do tend to have ccache in the mix, also.
And, my perception is that building boost doesn't really take that long (on Linux at least) so it's not obvious that being faster is so sought after.
But perhaps a different story with other toolchains?
- Nigel