Re: bjam rationale...

From: Tompa (tompa1969_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-16 04:04:09

I just think it is unfortunate that Boost relies on something that most
traditionally trained C/C++ developers thinks look like greek. Often these
developers are pretty comfortable with make, so a natural choice for the build
system would have been gnu-make, IMHO. However, since the folks at Boost are
very competent and wise and seldom make anything undeliberate this implies that
bjam probably is, well, superior to gnumake. This is what I'm after at. What is
it that makes bjam a so much better choice over gnumake so it is worth all the
complication for the rest of us not-yet-atleast-bjammers in the C++ community?
/Tompa