From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-16 16:40:09
> If you compare SCons to Boost.Build, you get similar performances for both.
This is interesting. I've unsubscribed from this list for a while last year
and just noticed there was a long thread discussing all of this sometime last
september, which I missed. I just went back and read it and all the relevant
references, as well as the (contentious) update to the "gamesfromwithin.com"
build comparison article (I only saw the first one sometime last year).
I am in the process of looking for a build tool that could replace our make
infrastructure and from my small scale tests, Boost.Build V2 seemed like an
interesting alternative. By that I mean that I was willing to put in the work
to try it on a larger project.
Some of the performance notes I saw are a bit disapointing. Our developers
want very fast response when it comes to a single file edit/recompile cycle.
> BJam - which is a variant of Jam - and Python are both comparable here. They
are the languages that
> Boost.Build and SCons are written in.
I understand. I was being sloppy with my terminology.
> I have been using Python for some months now and I really like it :). I am
using the Python tar file utilities to
> create a simple extraction tool that rivals the best extraction tools out
there in terms of performance.
I like python too (even though I wish it supported threading a bit better, but
that's a post for another thread). However, (in my limited sample space of 1 -
Scons) I've seen a python based build system that performs very poorly.
Thanks for all the information.
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