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

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [future] Implementation language(s)..
From: PJB (darthpjb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-26 11:03:13

​​
On 26 October 2016 at 15:42, <aaron_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Most developers (here, at least) know nothing
> about build systems, nor do they care to learn. So, it's not that they
> don't
> *need* logic in their declarations, it's that they *don't know they don't
> need* logic
> in their declarations.
>

​Honestly, I can agree with this entirely, I've met my fair share of
developers who think the entire world revolves around C# and the .Net
framework - not even a clue how a build system goes, or why.
However, can we really argue that bubble-wrapping a system for the
incompetent is a valid strategy if it​ diminishes the productivity of the
competent?
I don't want to sound like some kind of intellectual fascist, but I just
can't accept "dumbing down" a system because the la(z)yman doesn't care to
learn it's proper use.

​​
On 26 October 2016 at 15:42, <aaron_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> This is similar to what
> I have experimented in the b2 Python port with when using the
> YAML/JSON/XML files to declare targets. The target declaration file, while
> not as powerful, can cover about 90% of target creation.
>

​I haven't seen b2's Python port, however this seems to me the obvious
solution (and fine middleground).
XML to declare build targets (for the uncaring), python for the capable
(expert) to ​apply logical for certain systems and approaches where
sanctioned, and C++ for core-development.