Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee?
From: Chambers, Matthew (matt.chambers42_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 16:05:27
On 8/14/2017 10:10 AM, Douglas Capeci via Boost-build wrote:
> I have found that most cMake advocates don't really understand how much better of a world Boost Build offers. They also have a hard time
> getting out of the dinosaur cave to give up the old arduous ways of maintaining complex Makefile based build systems to simply learn JAM.
> I would argue that the current cMake product front-end (and that is all it is...) is the result of cMake developers taking a hard and
> close look at Boost Build and understanding its elegance and superiority.
I believe that CMake became popular in the open source community precisely because maintaining CMakefiles is very much like maintaining an
autotools system Makefile, plus it also makes Visual C++ projects for native Windows support (cue applause). Switching to cmake, after using
autotools for a long time, doesn't require rethinking what a build system should do.
Boost.Build could probably use a "Why Boost.Build instead of Makefiles?" motivational tutorial. My autotools-fu was never that great to
begin with, so I wouldn't be the right one to write it, that's for sure.
As for existing Boost libs dropping support for Boost.Build, I'm not too concerned. I use Rene's boost-ext.jam extensions file and update it
whenever I need a new lib from Boost, or updating Boost requires necessitates changes to it.
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