From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-03 01:02:35
Rene Rivera wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> Since we are talking about plans...
>>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 16:49:28 Johan Nilsson wrote:
>>>>>> - The features and performance of language are not
>>>>> Will Python be any faster?
>>>> Yes. Python, unlike Jam, has a full array of data structures. It also
>>>> has ref-counting, unlike Jam where an object created anywhere for
>>>> any purpose, keeps using memory forever.
>>> Note, the next step for bjam is to start rewriting it in C++. Which will
>>> remove that and various other deficiencies.
>> Just like with Boost.Build Python port, we already have it. But it's
>> necessary to look and figure what state it is in.
> I looked, and... I'm not sure how much of it I can use. It relies fairly
> heavily on Boost libraries which presents a rather annoying bootstrap
Oooh! I though it only uses external hash library, but otherwise self-contained.
It's indeed a problem.
> It also goes against my plan to star using C++ incrementally
> since it's a ground-up rewrite.
Well, assuming it works it's OK; unfortunately we don't have much
unit tests for bjam, so it's hard to be sure there are no bugs,
and fixing the bugs with a completely changed codebase might
be much harder.
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