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determining when stuff is out of date (this also makes it pretty slow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
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