Re: Boost.Build and SCons

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-14 09:19:38

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' )

Python is really a sub-optimal language for specifying these things
because of the need for quotes and commas. You may say that the other
advantages of writing in Python outweigh the disadvantages -- and I
_might_ even agree in some cases -- but I think the Jam language has
some value of its own for its intended use.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com