Re: [Boost-build] Python port development

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Python port development
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-08 15:08:11

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 07/08/2010 12:58 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>>
>>   I realize that this is off topic - but really curious as to why
>> you've selected python rather than C++
>> for this effort. Would you care to list you're reason(s)?
>>
>
> May be I'm misunderstanding what you have in mind, but to me the
> answer seems obvious: Makefiles (or Jamfiles or SConstruct files,
> etc.) are essentially scripts (with a domain-specific language) that
> are interpreted. How would you do that with C++ ?

bjam is a script interpreter.  Seems to me that C++ is meant to
be the best there is for this kind of job.

> Or are you thinking of inventing a new such DSL and writing the parser
> for it in C++ ?

That's what bjam does now.

> I believe one of the biggest advantages of moving to
> Python is that it is a well known language,

aaa... and C++ is not?

> with well-define semantics.

and C++ semantics are not well-defined?

>Writing a DSL on top of that is much less work (and will
> be easier to extend, as well as apprehend by users), than any custom
> language (including the language currently used in bjam /
> boost.build).

So the "new" bjam would have a different language than the current v2?
That's new to me.

I'm not being critical, I'm just not seeing the point of this.

Robert Ramey