Dean Michael Berris wrote:
For whatever it's worth, I'd like to give my opinions about this issue.
<snip>
What I particularly like about BBv2 is how easy it seems to make a Jamfile.v2 from scratch and modify it according to your later requirements without the pain you usually deal with in the Make family of tools. Although I understand the apprehension of maintaining the Jam sources (in C most of it) and even the Boost.Build .jam files, I for one have seen the benefits of such a system as being part of Boost.
I for one wouldn't want to see Boost.Build or Boost.Jam deprecated because I've greatly benefited from these technologies greatly.
<snip>
//Steps down from Soap Box
So personally, I'd like to still stick with Boost.Build and Boost.Jam ... <snip>
I'd just like to add my agreement with all these points. I feel great joy in being able to write with relative ease a single Jamfile that allows me to compile the same library on virtually every platform with the exact same command ("bjam"). This is saving me a *lot* of headaches. And it seems to be easy to extend the use of bjam to individual non-portable situations. For example, I can now build C++/CLI libraries using bjam as well. Having a single tool with a single consistent syntax that works across all platforms is an absolutely wonderful thing. Knuth understood this when he developed TeX, and we mathematicians have benefited enormously from this. Tools like Perl and Python have a similar advantage. (I do wish Boost Build v2 was built using Python.) I consider Boost Build v2 to have the same advantage. Deane