Bruno Santos wrote:
Ter, 2010-07-20 às 10:55 +0200, Marco Guazzone escreveu:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
For those reasons, Rene and I have decided that "bjam.exe" should go. We're thinking about naming the executable simply "build.exe", since no other build tool bothered to take it.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
IMHO, "build" is a very generic name.
Maybe something like "bbuild" (where the first "b" stands for Boost) might just help me to remember this is a boost related tool
Cheers,
-- Marco _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Agree. It's too much generic.
It's generic, but well, there are no conflicts in practice.
Some additional suggestions:
boostb bmake bbv2 mkbb
Thanks. However, I am not sure the association with 'make' is something we want, and 'boostb' and 'bbv2' are somewhat cryptic. I was thinking about just 'b2', but Rene does not like that much either. And 'bb' is more like sound a child might make ;-) - Volodya