Re: [Boost-build] Future development

From: Ray Lambert (codemonkey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-09 01:00:38

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Oct 07 2007, Ray Lambert <codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:
>> ... I do want to say 
>> something regarding my theory of make obsolescence, ...
>>
>> I mean this in the sense of it being unfit for the job (because the rest 
>> of the world has moved forward and it hasn't).  
>>     
> It all turns on what job you're asking it to do.  Cmake doesn't ask
> very much of make.
>   
I'm only asking it to do what it was originally intended to do, as a 
stand-alone tool, as I described in the example that I gave.

> My analogy to high-level language compilers and assemblers stands.
>   
Sorry, but I still can't accept that as a valid analogy.  Assembler is 
ultimately fundamental to all SW and it is what it is because it is 
dictated by the hardware (processor).  Seeing as it's highly unlikely 
that we'll see any revolutionary microprocessor-level changes in the 
foreseeable future (perhaps not even in our lifetimes), assembler in a 
very real sense is virtually unable to become obsolete (in the absence 
of revolutionary microprocessor changes).  So, your analogy is 
effectively trying to disprove my argument about 'make' obsolescence by 
comparing it to something that cannot become obsolete.  To me, that 
amounts to apples and oranges.

>> ...  Hence, I tend to agree with Volodya's proposed solution to replace 
>> the jam-related parts with a re-write in a modern, popular, and 
>> well-supported language such as Python.  
>>     
> He's not talking about replacing the jam part, FWIW.
>   
Isn't he?  Perhaps I misunderstood that then?  I thought this was a main 
point of the re-write.  Perhaps Volodya can clarify?

>> ... If the need isn't so urgent, I would recommend that Boost wait 
>> and see how the next BB milestone develops and what comes out of it.  
>>     
> Is that milestone special in some way, or is that just a general call
> for patience?
>   
I meant the Python re-write, which I guess is actually two milestones 
away?  (Sorry, I forget the sequence at the moment.)  I guess my comment 
was also some of the latter as well though.

>> Most importantly, I would recommend *not* "cannibalizing" BB, in the
>> way being discussed, for the sake of Boost.  I feel that more will
>> be lost than gained by doing so.
>>     
> That sounds awfully dramatic.  Who is talking about "cannibalizing?"
> Are other build tools about to eat Boost.Build?
>   
Yes, perhaps a bit dramatic. :)  I'm referring to what I perceive as 
discarding (eating?) the current "make-less" capability in exchange for 
cmake's "make-dependent" capability.  Which, as I discussed in some 
detail, would be a regrettable loss IMO.

~ray