Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [future] Implementation language(s)..
From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemens.morgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-25 14:45:38
>>>> Every extra tool and plugin adds complexity - and loses you users,
>>>> some before they start, and potentially many more when it doesn't
>>>> 'just work'.
>>> I think you are making up a false dichotomy here: While "extra tool"
>>> sounds intuitive, the question is what the real alternative to using
>>> such extra tools would be. Please don't let the Not Invented Here
>>> syndrome strike yet again.
>> And we have to presume that the build system can never do everything
>> a user might need, so we need extensibility anyway.
> Aren't you contradicting yourself here ? Above you say "using a
> programming lanuage for target declarations is a bad idea", and now "we
> need extensibility anyway.", unless you envision two distinct languages
> / tools for these.
Yes, I do in fact envision two languages here and this thread is about
the implementation, NOT the usage, i.e. the target-declarations. So if
you only use the features provided by the system, you'd neither need
python nor C++. But if you need an extension you write in in Python or
C++. I.e. if you have a small one, use python, if you have a big one
(e.g. Java) use C++.
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