From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-02 22:45:25
on Tue Oct 02 2007, "Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> In light of that, I think that the future of Boost.Build is a Python
>> implementation. We actually have a beginning of said port, but it
>> more work. I'll soon post more details of what state that port is, and
>> what work is necessary. The important points however:
>> (1) This is going to be 1<->1 port. Until we pass all tests,
>> no behaviour changes should be done.
>> (2) We'll still be using bjam build engine, and Jamfiles as
>> description language
> Ok. If this holds true I guess I'd be pretty satisfied with a Python port.
> One of my main concerns regarding a port is that Python isn't really
It certainly can be declarative, just like C++ can be declarative. It
depends on building an appropriate DSL.
> [ I'm by no means an Scons expert, but those builds scripts makes
> Jamfiles look like a dream in comparison. ]
Native python build descriptions will always have the disadvantage
that strings need to be quoted. Even with that handicap, I think
Scons could have gone further in the direction of declarative build
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
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