Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-24 14:58:11

Rene Rivera wrote:
> To everyone saying the docs need work. Yes we know ;-) And as everyone
> knows it's hard and long work to improve them. I don't have the time,
> it would take me al of today to respond to each of the post about it.
> So consider this a +1 from me also on the whole documentation topic.

Hmmm given that time/resources is always a constraint, I was responding
to the idea of investing an effort (which would be large) in some sort of
bjam remake.  If you don't have the time to get together a good
document, you'll never have time to re-write the code.  A couple
of observations

a) probably most of the information required is scattered around
various web pages.  The usage of bjam is intertwined with the building
of boost.  It's still a big job, but it's not the same as starting from
scratch.

b) putting together a document such as this would result in a slew
of code changes/enhancements which would promote consistency.
My experience is that documentation and code should be developed
together because the process of doing one feeds information back
to the other.  E.G. when you write the documentation, only then
do you discover that opportunities for consistent syntax have been
missed.

>> I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh.

> People should stop apologizing for harshness..

I'm in agreement here.  There's nothing wrong with an honest
explanation of why something is working for me.  Of course it
crosses the line when it becomes personal in some way.  One
of the refreshing things about Boost lists is the opportunity
to have civil disagreement.

Robert Ramey