Scons vs BBv2 (was: Qt: moccing of cpp sources)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 06:29:46

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> > > But they are switching to Scons at the moment...
>> >
>> > Are they? I haven't see any news about this on KDE mailing lists.
>>
>> Well, according to my colleague this was discussed and probably
>> decided at the KDE Academy 2005 meeting in Malaga last week. He's
>> working on cervisia and said that the first Scons files appear in
>> the repository right now.
>
> Ehm... indeed. It looks like a couple of developers made SCons setup
> for KDE, and the question which system to use did not really arise
> (at least Boost.Build was not considered at all).

I think we'd better think carefully about this. More and more
recently, I've been seeing people who are otherwise highly inclined
toward Boost using Scons instead of Boost.Build. We should be asking
why. What does Scons do better than Boost.Build? Is it more
reliable? Easier to understand? Better supported? etc.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com