From: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve (rwgk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-15 14:07:20
--- Larry Evans <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 09/14/2005 06:56 AM, rwgk wrote:
> > - Since I am quite happy with SCons it would take something vastly
> > better to motivate me to switch. The syntax would have to be at least
> > as nice and powerful as Python.
> From my *brief* look at:
> it appears that scons requires the user to decide to separate
> the different variant buids into different directories, and
> the directory names also have to be specified by the user.
> In constrast, bjam does this for the programmer, IIUC.
That's probably right.
I cannot afford/never wanted variant builds. On the fastest machine with 8 CPUs
our build from scratch takes about 5 minutes. On the slowest machine with 1 CPU
it takes about 10 hours. For one variant. Maintaining multiple variants would
be impractical. Therefore to me bjam's creative directory trees seemed overly
complicated. It is hard to find the results of a build.
I also never figured out how to get bjam to build a specific target, maybe
since I never had the patience to figure out the complicated path names.
Whith the scons repository support, the build directory is the current working
directory. The path names of the generated files were obvious to me from day
one. I can use file-name completion ("tab") to specify rebuilding of specific
targets. I can easily rebuild specific targets with custom compilation flags by
capturing the scons output, editing it (i.e. to change -O3 to -O0 -g) and
submitting them with a tiny script. Most of the time I know exactly in which
translation unit the bug is located and just recompiling this one unit is fully
sufficient to support debugging.
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk