"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:87bqgsu7hn.fsf@grogan.peloton...
on Wed May 09 2007, "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental-AT-thomson.com> wrote:
Let me add my 2 cents on the topic.
1. I believe CMake proponents are simply kidding themselves. Changing boost make system with all it's unique and complicated requirements to anything else would require up to half a year of extensive development. Even based on existing facility.
Yeah, but someone else is volunteering to do the work, so the risk to us is minimal.
I've got an impression that this someone do not really understand what he is getting into. Could anyone familiar with both BBv2 and CMake estimate amount of initilal efforts required? And most probably we will need ongoing support.
2. I - as build system user - do not want to know ANYTHING about native build tools. I need single command that results in library compilation wherever I am on.
Agreed. How is that relevant to the CMake question?
On cursory look on this discussion I've got an impression that CMake is native makefile generation system. IOW I will need to 1. run some kind of script to generate makefile 2. run native make command This is unacceptable for me on both counts. If we decide to build wrapper around CMake, who is going to develop and maintain it?
3. Do we (boost developers) really have any problems with BBv2?
Yes, I do. I started that project, so I have a vested interest in it. Still, I'm just about ready to stop sinking any more time into it. Just off the top of my head:
- bjam appears to still be buggy
In my personal expirience with BBv1, most of day to day activities worked fine. I never touched BBv2 yet.
- bjam consumes memory without bound (a design feature)
Do you mean it leaks memory?
- the build process part of bjam is inscrutable even to experts
Again. Couple times I had build bjam, I had no problems.
- only one person understands how to work on the core of BBv2
Ummm. How many do you think it should be? How many peoples know details of most boost libraries implementation?
- the code is inscrutable and under-documented
Which code you mean? My understanding is that we got application and scripts around it. Does implementation of any of Boost libraries is documented?
- that person is not writing documentation that would allow others to understand it
I remember there were several people volontiring to help with with making docs clear and "english friendly" ;)
- the language in which it is written is used in no other tool or project, thus presenting a barrier-to-entry for volunteers. - that person can't handle the volume of feature requests, help requests, and bug reports he gets. - there appear to be unresolvable philosophical differences about the design future of BBv2: http://tinyurl.com/34fqko
All in all the problems you are descripbing are real, but they primarily from development/support prospective, not usage.
If more docs are required, wouldn't it be easier to write them instead of wasting time jumping from one build system to another?
Apparently only one person understands the system well enough to write them, but he is unable to keep up with the pace of development. I think maybe you can relate to that predicament ;-)
Oh. Yes. This one hits close to home. But I still think working on docs is easier and more realistic than all around switch to the different make system. Gennadiy