From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 02:21:28
> anyway, although I/we keep using Boost.Build for our underlying
> boost-like libraries, I switched to SCons last night for the libraries
> (those needing this omniidle stuff) that are to be used by a number
> of developers. Within an hour I had everything set up and running and
> I think that for those developers SCons is much easier to comprehend
> and extend. Those developers are doing their first steps in the world
> of c++/OO/etc, so I think Boost.Build is too much right now (no
> offense ;-). The boost-like parts (nurbs, route planning, etc) are
> based on Boost.Build and will be; they are maintained by other developers.
Is there any change you'll send (either to list, or to me personally), the
SCons files so that we can see what approach worked better for you?
Thanks in advance,
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