Compatibility (Was: [jamboost] Boost.Build and SCons)

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-14 02:57:11

On Monday 13 December 2004 23:33, Toon Knapen wrote:
> Pedro Ferreira wrote:
> > My vision is:
> > - create a 100% Python Boost.Build library on top of SCons
> > - create a parser for the bjam language
>
> Just wondering: do we really need backward compatibility with the bjam
> language? Don't get me wrong, I've already invested lots of time in
> getting my Jamfile's right so I have a vested interested in compatibility.
>
> But OTOH I think that long-term it might not be the best option because
> we need to have a parser for bjam. Why not use python language (like
> scons) directly in the build-scripts ? The strong point of boost-build
> are the concepts in the user-interface. And these are what we need to
> 'port' on top of scons. But I would not insist to write
>
> exe foo : foo.cpp : <include>../include ;
>
> instead of
>
> create_exe( foo, 'foo.cpp', '<include>../include' )

I think we already have parser for Jamfile -- the one in Jam. Integrating that 
with Python solution (whatever specific design is used) should be simple.

OTOH, I believe that preserving Jamfiles is an important goal. It's kind of 
"marketing" point. Even if Boost.Build is not yet 2.0-final and we made no 
promises, breaking compatibility will cause much troubles for users. Even 
imagine that a project works fine with 2.0-m11 but does not work with (say) 
2.0-m12. Everybody will be upset with how Boost.Build is incompatible with 
itself.

- Volodya