On May 9, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
Yes, but end-users are not the only audience we have to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that: It is worth making Boost developers' life harder in order to make a particular subset of end-users life easier.
I didn't think I was making any trade-off. I want a build system that's easier for end users, especially first-time users. I don't see anything that makes it harder for developers.
Note: I happen to be one of the end-users of Boost.Build, so I avoid using IDEs, in particular VisualStudio, because they are some of the best examples of bad interface design (and I have yet to find an IDE that did not reduce programmer productivity).
Then don't use an IDE. CMake can generate the makefiles for you. Worse case, you need a top-level makefile to run multiple commands in one shot.
Which brings up the point, or maybe it was already mentioned, that any new technologies we consider, we have to consider the within Boost expertise available to maintain the new system.
Yes, definitely. The same consideration applies to Boost.Build version 2... how much expertise is there to maintain this system? As far as I know, only 2 people have any level of understanding of BBv2. I, personally, struggle to do anything that isn't copy-paste from something I've done earlier. Is there anyone outside of Boost that understands BBv2 at any level? - Doug