At work we run scons and regular makefile systems on AIX. In the beginning I
was a big proponent of scons. But I hate it now: It is INCREDIBLY slow on
large systems, even when you want to compile just one file, it seems to
build the entire dependency tree before compiling. Python is cool - Scons I
don't use anymore unless I'm ordered to.
-----Original Message-----
From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org
[mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Thore Karlsen
Sent: 13 September 2005 16:21
To: boost-users@lists.boost.org
Cc: boost@lists.boost.org; jamboost@yahoogroups.com;
boost-users@lists.boost.org
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Scons users?
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:46:08 +0500, Alex Besogonov
On the Boost.Build list we were just discussing the fact that some people otherwise inclined towards Boost have chosen Scons over Boost.Build. It would be useful for us to understand some of the reasons why, if some of you wouldn't mind letting us know. No flames, please!
Well, SCons supports distributed building and binary repositories - that's a MAJOR selling point. And Python is much nicer than jamfiles.
PS: there's also mxx_ru (http://eao197.narod.ru/mxx_ru/) it's a build system based on Ruby - it has some interesting features worth attention. Unfortunately, its documentation is only in Russian, but this should not be a problem for Vladimir Prus :)
Another Python-based build system I like a lot is A-A-P (http://www.a-a-p.org). I haven't played much with SCons, but judging from the SCons documentation, A-A-P is a lot more powerful. I've found A-A-P to be indispensable for my builds, as well as other things like web page publishing. -- Be seeing you. _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users