-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Eric Niebler Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:46 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
On 7/20/2010 1:06 PM, John Maddock wrote:
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.
The name bjam is no doubt hard-coded in many build scripts and renaming it will create a lot of unnecessary bugs.
Good point.
+1 for leaving it "bjam".
Despite the original name being 'silly', I doubt if changing it now will be worth the costs and confusion. Would it be better to document 'Boost.Bjam' / 'Boost.Jam' (with just pointers to bjam / Boost.Build docs) so that users do eventually find what they want to know? Perhaps acknowledging the choice of name as 'purely historical' would also help - people always respond well to 'why'. Paul PS If this is Boost.Build then would boost.exe be a good name? Typing 'boost' would be good for brand building ;-) --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com