From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-07 17:42:08
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> Boost.Build has some really great ideas in it. The way features can
>> be defined and separately mapped onto the platform, how features
>> interact and propagate, the flexibility of generators... all of these
>> allow us to describe complex build systems rather easily. These are
>> good, solid ideas, and they work well in BBv2, so why haven't we seen
>> a more adoption of Boost.Build beyond boost?
> "More" compared to what? I get the impression that Boost.Build is used
> outside Boost, and well, it was used outside boost even more Boost itself
> started moving to V2.
It even gets used outside the C++ world, according to people on IRC.
In fact, there has been a lot of feedback on IRC regarding the
build-system. I found that rather surprising, because I used to think
bjam/BB is not widely in use. But I learnt different, especially
maintainers of large projects seemed to have developed a liking for bjam/BB.
I am now quite optimistic regarding the future of the bjam-based BB.
I don't think the language itself is a big issue. Documentation used to
be, but it's getting better. Memory management of bjam is a nightmare,
but that's definitely a solvable problem.
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