On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:59 PM Alain Miniussi via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 18/07/2017 23:18, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
On 18/07/2017 20:08, Louis Dionne via Boost wrote:
(2) Prospective Boost developpers are sometimes driven away from submitting because they would have to use Boost's build system, which they don't know.
I don't think a C++ programmer with a programming level to write a Boost library would have any problem to write a Jamfile copy-pasting from any library. ...
Even if there was learning material, one should not have to learn a new
boost specific build system just to contribute. And I don't think bjam can build anything else than a simple C++ project so it's not like you can capitalize on the time spent (I tried, then switched to CMake).
CMake could be a piece of junk, but it's a maintained, somehow documented, community supported piece of junk, that I can use on real projects.
I'm sure this is how a lot of C++ users out there feel. Yes, anyone who can learn C++ can learn another build system. But why require more burden than is strictly necessary? CMake is the very clear trend across the broader community. Yes, it's far from perfect -- despite a monumental clean-up effort. But more developer systems have CMake installed already. Even IDEs such as CLion and Visual Studio are putting their weight behind it. I am hugely appreciative of anyone who is willing to put aside their own solutions in order to improve interoperability and simplicity. This will surely be a positive thing for Boost and C++ in the long term.