Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Alexander Arhipenko (arhipjan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-28 07:00:54
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Spencer E. Olson <olsonse_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'd like to hear feedback with regards to the future of Boost.Build/bjam. A
> colleage recently attended BoostCon and came back with the impression that
> Boost.Build would be replaced by Kitware's CMake for Boost's primary build
> system. Apparently, someone asked "who uses Boost.Build in non-Boost
> programming" and very few people raised their hands. On the other hand,
> after the question "who uses cmake in non-Boost packages" and several people
> raised their hand.
I'm not a boost developer, but as a regular boost and boost.build user
would like to:
1) Raise my hand for Build.Build.
We (and personally I) use it as primary build system in our company
for about 2,5 years.
And we didn't invest too much efforts into moving to BBv2 (it was done
at project startup).
Please note, we don't have trivial build configuration with 1
We have shared libraries and executables that depends on boost libraries,
oracle occi, zlib, OpenSSL. 95% of the system is multiplatform (Posix/Windows).
At this moment regular developer spents 0,1% of his working time
In my personal use boost build is really helpful when writing gui Qt
I don't want to be BBv2 evangelist.
Sure, this system has issues, e.g.:
lack of documentation, some tricky syntax etc.
But sentences that 'it is hard to use' or 'hard to extend' or
'hard to use for the real production code' is
very-very exaggerated and non-adequate.
This sentences only shows the most BBv2 issues:
lack of documentation, lack of marketing and possibly lack of human resources.
2) Express my deep disappointment in case BBv2 becomes second citizen
in boost project.
3) Express my deep frustration in case BBv2 won't be maintained in the
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