From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-16 07:56:34
Graham Batty wrote:
> I came back to looking at jam when I started using boost. bjam v1 was
> decent, but really seemed to suffer from a lot of the same flaws as
> perforce jam did (including problems with multi-directory structures). bjam
> v2 as of at least milestone 5, however, impresses me a great deal. So far,
> aside from performance problems, it seems to be almost exactly what I have
> been hoping for in an improved jam and a make replacement. The way tools
> are structured, the ability to define and work with variants, the ability
> to refer to targets with indirect paths (and have them *work*) are all the
> sorts of things that I always wished for from jam.
> I haven't seen much in the way of appreciation for the effort expended, so
> kudos to you guys, who have made jam fulfill a lot of it's potential. It is
> an impressive feat to say the least. Kudos also for making it generic
> enough to be used for any project, then building it up for boost.
Thank you, Graham!
It's very rewarding to hear kind words, and know that we're not designing and
coding for ourselfs only. And it surely gives extra motivation to solving
those issues which still remain.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk