Re: [Boost-build] [future] Implementation language(s)..

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
>     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++.
>
>     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.

        Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...