Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [future] Implementation language(s)..
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-25 14:55:23
On 25.10.2016 14:51, Rene Rivera wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Stefan Seefeld <stefan_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:stefan_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> On 25.10.2016 14:45, Klemens Morgenstern wrote:
> > Yes, I do in fact envision two languages here and this thread is
> > 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++.
> So if I start a new project and I want to use Boost.Build for it, how
> many languages do I need to know to write the build system ? (I'd find
> anything other than '1' unacceptable.)
> Now that's a really important question! Right now it's Jam you need to
> know. But as we know, it's not an easy language to do general
> programming (it was never meant to be). But would it matter if most of
> the time the answer is "Python". And if you want something hard-core
> performance-side it's Python & C++?
That's exactly what I'm arguing for indeed. And even if performance is
an issue, I can imagine certain builtin modules to be actual C++
"extension modules", as is quite custom in Python-land anyhow. The
end-user still only needs to know Python to use this.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
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