Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-27 14:41:23
On 5/27/2010 12:58 PM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> I don't want to debate
> CMake versus bjam ( at least on list...), it has been done all over the
> place on the internet.
And all over this list before also ;-)
> I think CMake brings some pretty cool
> tools to the party (CPack for creating installers, CTest for easy unit test
> reporting) that would enhance further the quality of releases.
I know you said you don't want to debate, but there's an important point
about Cmake vs. BBv2. Even though Cmake makes some things easier, the
method and results are not "good", from my point of view. For BB/bjam we
strive to make things as good as we can manage. Which is hard given that
we are dealing with some rather old code for bjam. It also means we tend
to move a bit slower around here.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
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