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

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