Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
On 5/9/07, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
It seems boost.build is becoming a real burden on boost. I would really like to see boost developing great tools as it develops great libraries. Even after reading this over multiple times it sounds like two contradicting statements. Do you suggest boost to move on in the build tool business or not ?
Sorry, it really is contradicting. What I meant is that there seem to be a lot of interest in getting out of tool development in boost. But I really think we should continue developing those tools. And I think so because boost is really different from what is there outside. Boost.build seems to me as something unique. Sure, there are a lot of things that needs improvement, but the know-how boost has acquired in boost.build is quite big and I believe using this knowledge to improve bbv2 is better in the long term.
I don't quite agree. There are very few people who know boost.build (v2). Many less than people who understand other build systems. That's one of the reasons things are so fragile. Also, I can't say it often enough: I'm not arguing against any of these tools. They certainly have merit. But boost.org itself has a scope into which these tools don't fall, so I'd prefer them to be developed elsewhere, to keep people focused on "C++ libraries", as opposed to "things we can do better than the rest of the world". Regards, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...