Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-26 09:19:37

Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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?

It seems like a possibility worth considering, because those Scons
guys have dealt with all of the low-level build system issues like
dependency analysis and parallelizing builds, and the Python guys have
dealt with all the low-level interpretive language issues like how to
implement classes, strings, etc. and all of the system-level issues
like how to implement a portable popen.

>> 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?

Well, probably not "scons scripts" in the sense of what scons users
are used to seeing; more likely just Python functions. There's an
"upper layer" of what Scons does that we're probably not interested
in using, and I'm guessing that scons scripts speak to that layer.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at