I don't remember all of the details, but a while back we went through the experiement of implementing parts of our build in both bjam and scons. Probably the single biggest benefit that scons had over bjam (and the other options we looked at) was the use of python. It was very natural and comforting, whenever we can across a wierd corner in the build, to just write some python code to deal with it. I seem to remember scons being better documented, although it was perhaps just more intuitive. In the end, both build systems worked just fine, IIRC, and we stuck with scons for the reasons above. Since then, we've come to place a great deal of faith in scons. It's a great crutch, in fact, as it's extremely good at determining when stuff is out of date (this also makes it pretty slow sometimes). I've found, for instance, that bjam doesn't seem to notice when I change compile-time definitions (i.e. for the signals lib namespace), while scons does. Austin Bingham On 9/13/05, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi,
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!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com <http://www.boost-consulting.com>
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users