Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Python port development
From: Michael Jackson (mike.jackson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-08 14:48:48

On 7/8/10 2:35 PM, in article 4C361A5A.6050302_at_[hidden], "Stefan
Seefeld" wrote:

> Let me copy&paste some high-level bits (from the above link) her:
> Why? ¶ <>
> Boost.Build V2 is mostly implemented in the interpreted language of the
> underlying build tool, and it has a number of problems:
> * No user knows that language, making it hard to extend Boost.Build
> or become new developer.
> * The language is strange at times, and not very nicely documented.
> * There's no standard libraries, so every new functionality should
> be implemented from scratch
> * The only data structure in the language is list of strings. This
> makes many tests cumbersome, and leads to excessive memory
> consumption and poor performance on some workloads.
> Stefan

And for all those reasons the CMake build system was implemented for the
boost project. It is done, works and is proven. Of course this does not stop
you from doing what you want with boost or improving how you want. Just
stating something that might have been overlooked. If you are looking for a
"better*" way to build boost it _may_ already exist.

Mike Jackson.

* Better is absolutely subjective. Some people like CMake others do not.
Some agree with how CMake is developed and used. Some do not. The choice is

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