Re: [Boost-build] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee?

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee?
From: Douglas Capeci (doug_capeci_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 02:03:22

You certainly may quote me, and my strong support for keeping Boost Build. 

My group has carefully evaluated other alternatives (one of them being cMake) and we found Boost Build and Jam to be far superior for C++ systems than any of the others. We liked it so much that we have integrated Boost Build and Jam into our Sun Grid Engine compute environment to perform all of our C++ software builds.

On Aug 13, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Rene Rivera via Boost-build wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Douglas Capeci via Boost-build <boost-build_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> A sigh of relief in knowing that Boost Build will continue as a supported Boost tool offering.
> 
> I would go farther and say that it's going to get better support now than before. Here's at least my idea of what will happen to Boost Build <https://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2017/07/29461.php>.
>  
> But why is CMake or another tool being considered to replace the current Boost Library build system? Jam is simple, elegant, easy to learn, and works very nicely for C++ tool enviroments and in MHO is better than CMake and any of its competitors. If it isn't broken why fix it?
> 
> First, you would have to ask the proponents of cmake and the Steering Committee about that. Second, can I quote you on that statement for publicity of Boost Build?
> 
> -- 
> -- Rene Rivera
> -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
> -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build