Re: [Boost-build] Jam rename?

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Jam rename?
From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-16 04:31:07

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Quite a number of folks tend to confuse Boost.Build and Boost.Jam,
> which is not only bad for "marketing" purposes, but also leads to
> people
> not understanding Boost.Build exists, has to be installed, has a
> version
> number, and all other kinds of confusion.

While personally not confused, I've noticed that as well (and I was probably 
pretty confused myself at some point in time).

> While previously Boost.Jam was close to Perforce Jam, it is presently
> a permanent and considerably diverged fork.

Isn't the basic model and functionality of Perforce Jam still retained in 
Boost.Jam? Sure, the language and builtins has been enhanced in several 
ways, but I'm under the impression that the most work has gone into the 
Boost.Build stuff. I'm sure that someone (Rene?) will correct me here if I'm 
wrong.

> In light of that, what
> would
> be the opinion about renaming 'bjam' binary into something.

With reference to the above; renaming Boost.Jam to something else would feel 
a bit unfair to its Perforce Jam / FTJam heritage (but I might make an issue 
out of a non-issue here).

As long as the proper copyright notices are preserved I guess that might not 
be a "legal" problem though, more of a "gut feeling" problem.

> I don't
> want
> to propose any specific name right now, but I'm interested in the
> opinion
> as to such rename will do more harm than good, or not?

It sounds like a large amount of work for little benefit, but I don't think 
it will do any active harm.

As for the actual renaming, "bb" would be succinct and seems to be unused as 
a command on at least my Windows XP and OpenSUSE 10.1 systems.

/ Johan