Re: [jamboost] Re: Bjam in C++?

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-25 02:05:19

David Abrahams wrote:

> Aside from other concerns voiced here, I am not sure how extensive you
> want to make these changes, but I think any major expenditure of
> effort on the low-level build tool is a waste of time in the long run.
> Fundamentally, the original product from Perforce is not very good
> software, and it's unreasonably difficult to create good software in
> the Jam language. We've corrected a lot of that, but I think we're
> near the end of that road. I really think in the long run we ought to
> be thinking in terms of preserving the architecture of Boost.Build,
> but of dumping the Jam heritage.

IIRC a few months ago you mentioned that bjam could be reimplemented on 
top of scons. Is this indeed your vision on the evolution of bjam?

> 
> FWIW, also, I think it would be fairly trivial to build a Jam ->
> Python compiler :-).
And thus this could mean that jam rules could be translated to scons 
scripts?