Re: [Boost-users] Boost-users Digest, Vol 807, Issue 1

From: Drumheller, Michael (michael.drumheller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-05 01:20:46

>>> ------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 9
>>> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:30:25 +0000
>>> From: Jim Douglas <jim_at_[hidden]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Getting started with Boost: what did you
>>> 	need to	know?
>>> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
>>> Message-ID: <ds1vo5$ue6$1_at_[hidden]>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>> 
>>> Drumheller, Michael wrote:
>>> > Main stumbling point for me was bjam.  It's not so much 
>>> of a problem for

<..snip...>
 
>>> Perhaps people don't complain because most only use bjam it 
>>> to build the 
>>> libraries (archives and shared objects) and then (like me) they use 
>>> 'make' to build the projects that incorporate Boost. I 
>>> would guess that you are in the minority if you write in-house
extensions to 
>>> the Boost library.

Sorry about that, I was being very unclear.  I did not mean in-house
extensions to the Boost library, I meant C++ extensions to Python, using
Boost.Python.  The Boost.Python tutorial contains an extremely ominous
warning, in a big yellow box, here:
<<http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc/html/python/hello.ht
ml>>,
It says, in so many words, that you're a masochist if you try to build
your Boost.Python extensions with anything but bjam. 

>>> Having said that, I can appreciate that bjam is a *very* 
>>> powerful tool and has many advantages over make, but I just can't
find 
>>> the time to study the docs enough to make a trial switch.
>>> 
>>> Jim

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the error-prone, undebuggable dinosaur
that is make, and I would never advocate it for a new project.  I too
can appreciate that bjam seems very powerful.  And elegant, in its own
way.  It also seems very fast.  But with a monster learning curve.
That's not necessarily a downer--you don't get something for nothing,
and I actually *like* learning new tools, so I was happy to see the
"Abandon hope, all ye who <would use a tool other than bjam>" warning on
the gates of Boost.Python (yellow box above), because I thought, well,
there's my motivation to learn bjam--maybe bjam will be my new default
build tool(!)  I read all the documents I could find, but man, it's like
learning Turkish or Vietnamese or something.  You need a teacher, and
there are just zero teachers in my org.  Alas, the bjam files in Boost
themselves (those that are used to build the Boost libraries) are (or at
least seem) *extremely* sohpisticated, and are woefully uncommented--in
fact, absolutely *un*commented if you define a comment as something with
tutorial value, e.g., "Here is an excellent example of a rule to do
such-and-such."  Personally, I was unable to get past the knee of the
curve given my other commitments.

Again, maybe it's just me.   I'm curious:  How many Boost users out
there use bjam as the default build tool for their day-to-day
programming?

I recall hearing at one time that there was a movement afoot, at one
time at least, to switch the Boost build process over to using scons.
Any truth to that?

Thanks,

MD