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.
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