From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-04 01:15:49
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> If you attempt to qualify usage of build tools in general on linux (say
> with debian popularity contest, link:)
> You'll see something like (rank/build tool)
> 2 make (gnu)
> 53 ant
> 71 automake1.9
> 75 automake
> 97 automake1.4
> 115 automake1.7
> 182 cmake
> 241 automake1.8
> 354 bjam
> 368 boost build
Am I right that the number is position in the list, not just
any metric of installation. If so, all you data proves that
that cmake now is more used than boost.build -- which is
something I agree to in another email. So, what's your point?
>> > I think the answer is "bjam". As you said above, the Jam language is
>> > essentially undocumented. It's also a rather odd language, and its
>> > eccentricities are exaggerated by the object-oriented system BBv2
>> > has built on top of Jam. We picked Jam several years ago, when
>> > Perforce was still working on it and it looked like there would be
>> > an active community around Jam. That hasn't happened, and we're
>> > somewhat isolated in our use of this language and build tool,
>> > forced to customize and maintain "bjam" on our own.
>> You surely understand that with core in Python, the amount of
>> maintenance and customization necessary for bjam will be greatly
>> reduced, almost to the point of being zero.
> Famous last words.
> FWIW, how is a rewrite into python addressing Doug's
> meta comment about the Jam language itself?
Simple -- most users have no problem writing:
exe a : a.cpp ;
the problems start when they try to extend Boost.Build. And using
Python for that will greatly simplify things.
> The BBv1 to BBv2 transition was long and painful. Now, with BBv3 a
> total rewrite, I'd expect something similar in the future, and
> boost-1.3x.0 to experience similar delays.
For the record, at least 50% of 1.34 delay had nothing to do with
Boost.Build (and don't get me started on that). And given that
rewrite is supposed to be 100% compatible for Jamfiles, I'd
expect a drop-in replacement.
>> Judging from the current distribution of user complains, it seems to
>> me that Python port is going to be immediate improvement, and the end
>> result will be pretty good. Other approaches seem much more risky.
> Could you elaborate on what you see are the top 10 user complaints? I'm
Had you read my initial email? It has 2 top user complaints.
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