Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Michael Jackson (mike.jackson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-27 15:20:35

On 5/27/10 2:41 PM, in article 4BFEBCD3.9050502_at_[hidden], "Rene Rivera"

> 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.

I agree which is why I think the CMake stuff kind of stalled. There needed
to be a very large rewrite of the boost test codes in order to make the
generated projects usable. Did you ever have CMake create a VS solution for
all of Boost? Yikes! It was that large change that I think turns most people
off of the Boost-CMake idea. What is important is that BJam is constantly
moving forward and being improved upon which can only help the Boost project
and get more developers using Boost.

Mike J.

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at