On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:32 AM, alainm <alain.miniussi@oca.eu> wrote:

On 27/09/2016 02:53, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
I'm not saying Boost.Build is bad. I love it. It's just that it doesn't leave the best first impression, and lots of people give up after the first try.
I didn't, I gave up after many month of pain an suffering, debugging and a fix that ended up in the trashcan. My two last attempts ended up in a hanging b2 (the answer I got the first time went along the lines of "well, Intel should fix it's mpi engine to fit our completely unknown tool.", is not that useful in the world I live in. Second time, having a background script sending appropriate signal to the build process ended up qualifying as a convenient solution, didn't bother reporting the issue).

That is unfortunate :-( And it shows one current weakness. It's not easy to extend and customize effectively.
CMake might be (well, is) a piece of junk, but it's a documented , supported and widespread piece of junk. And I'd probably use AutoTool over b2 anyway. At least I have a failsafe on scripting when everything else fails.
Not to mention I do not work in a C++ only universe, and support for Fortran and most third party tools seems to be kind of limited.

But yes, documentation would be a nice improvement to consider if world domination is under consideration.

Perhaps closer to saving the world and less domination ;-)
Performances is not such an issue when you have parallel build, although CMake seems to have a faster startup time for me.

My limited experience so far has been that cmake times are not that different. And when I take into account the human time in the frequent manual steps it adds up to more.

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail