Boosters, I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good. First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset. Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true. 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. Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions? Thanks, Volodya
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
IMHO, "build" is a very generic name. Maybe something like "bbuild" (where the first "b" stands for Boost) might just help me to remember this is a boost related tool Cheers, -- Marco
Ter, 2010-07-20 às 10:55 +0200, Marco Guazzone escreveu:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
IMHO, "build" is a very generic name.
Maybe something like "bbuild" (where the first "b" stands for Boost) might just help me to remember this is a boost related tool
Cheers,
-- Marco _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Agree. It's too much generic. Some additional suggestions: boostb bmake bbv2 mkbb
Bruno Santos wrote:
Ter, 2010-07-20 às 10:55 +0200, Marco Guazzone escreveu:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
IMHO, "build" is a very generic name.
Maybe something like "bbuild" (where the first "b" stands for Boost) might just help me to remember this is a boost related tool
Cheers,
-- Marco _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Agree. It's too much generic.
It's generic, but well, there are no conflicts in practice.
Some additional suggestions:
boostb bmake bbv2 mkbb
Thanks. However, I am not sure the association with 'make' is something we want, and 'boostb' and 'bbv2' are somewhat cryptic. I was thinking about just 'b2', but Rene does not like that much either. And 'bb' is more like sound a child might make ;-) - Volodya
From: Vladimir Prus
Some additional suggestions:
boostb bmake bbv2 mkbb
Thanks. However, I am not sure the association with 'make' is something we want, and 'boostb' and 'bbv2' are somewhat cryptic. I was thinking about just 'b2', but Rene does not like that much either. And 'bb' is more like sound a child might make ;-)
IMHO 'bb' is the winning option. An obvious reference to Boost.Build, very quick to type and not as generic as 'build'. Best regards, Robert
On 20 Jul 2010, at 11:54, Robert Kawulak wrote:
From: Vladimir Prus
Some additional suggestions:
boostb bmake bbv2 mkbb
Thanks. However, I am not sure the association with 'make' is something we want, and 'boostb' and 'bbv2' are somewhat cryptic. I was thinking about just 'b2', but Rene does not like that much either. And 'bb' is more like sound a child might make ;-)
IMHO 'bb' is the winning option. An obvious reference to Boost.Build, very quick to type and not as generic as 'build'.
My linux box already has a program called 'bb' installed, defined as 'aa for X'. Perhaps not very common, but already labelled as bb in my package repositories. Chris
Hi, A few remarks about proposed names : I think proposed named should be tested/searched before proposition. E.g : It seems build (by K.Silverman) & bmake (a few projects) are already taken. Too bad, I liked bmake. It feels hard to find a name that is not already used somewhere. Marketing wise : I think a name too much generic the product will be harder to be searched on google. If you use "boost" in its name, people might think you need the boost libraries to use it, or even worse, that you can only build boost with it. My proposition : Use a decorrelated name (e.g 'stand'), or something that has no explicit meaning, like foreign language ('brik'), or acronyms (many already proposed). If it's possible avoid numbers, I have the feeling it ships better. The proposed 'bb' seems ok for me at first glance (and it even comes with a mascot...). Best, Pierre Morcello
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Thanks. However, I am not sure the association with 'make' is something we want, and 'boostb' and 'bbv2' are somewhat cryptic. I was thinking about just 'b2', but Rene does not like that much either. And 'bb' is more like sound a child might make ;-)
I beg to differ here. The association with the name addresses the symptoms you criticised in the original posting. There's plenty of very popular projects following the same scheme. Cmake and qmake being certainly the most prominent. So many people will immediately know what it is. Besides, this effort only makes sense if the according project names mentioned by you are adjusted as well. Myself, the difficulties I had to find my way in that mess and to find out what Bjam and Boost.Build and friends have in common and what not are the main reason I didn't even include it into consideration when making the decision for a platform independent build system. So the issue is very real. Cheers, Stephan
Sorry, but I couldn't resist. And what about bstmake? Cheers, Giorgio. -- Quiero ser el rayo de sol que cada día te despierta para hacerte respirar y vivir en me. "Favola -Moda".
I collect all names and it'll be nice to reach an agreement. bmake (afaik already used) bbmake baby b2 bboost bjam (remain it as currently is) bb bbv2 and so on.. -- Quiero ser el rayo de sol que cada día te despierta para hacerte respirar y vivir en me. "Favola -Moda".
On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
I collect all names and it'll be nice to reach an agreement.
You could also throw bake in there (Boost + Make).
bmake (afaik already used) bbmake baby b2 bboost bjam (remain it as currently is) bb bbv2
and so on..
-- Quiero ser el rayo de sol que cada día te despierta para hacerte respirar y vivir en me. "Favola -Moda". _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
I collect all names and it'll be nice to reach an agreement.
You could also throw bake in there (Boost + Make).
It's taken -- strangely, by a build tool ;-) This particular one, I believe, was already unmaintained when Boost.Build was started, but still found by Google. - Volodya
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 22-07-2010 17:45, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
I collect all names and it'll be nice to reach an agreement.
You could also throw bake in there (Boost + Make).
It's taken -- strangely, by a build tool ;-) This particular one, I believe, was already unmaintained when Boost.Build was started, but still found by Google.
On the other hand BakeFile is a build-file generator written in Python and refers to the process as "baking", so bake might not be the best answer either. /Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMSKeIAAoJEKd8gmwzkHPJZPoH/0rmf/BrT75D/UtQpiK757Zd 5a/ymobnlY3p9HQPFvbZuN2VvZkhJB7xYVbXpWs0RYQQwMz7BHNgQrDVV8lVy1r9 aXDa48LIGkLSUqKtJijKqHcAqDXfSiq3NjnlPcNkgf1rLDYR4OoZbz3Aq/zoLDQg Bc0yKopSaEf7+MFW/n/z81UilFj30Zz8StPjMaCNKVQmnv5Odlms5ainmC3U779f j1xCPrUsWHCGDeQ+eBRGzVfkVdpNKJ7EM70Y7Kmc0YKUESqclq+KENtZZPzNzmgB FHOkrHvGO2JAQ5OQ9GZ6FIsF2L1aVojTDDaNMvXIKPe0Uvd4fzkW0vvVJ2Ojq9Y= =J226 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello, "build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution", and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like OSs. So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace. For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build should be something like boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear. Artyom ----- Original Message ----
From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> To: boost@lists.boost.org Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 11:45:07 AM Subject: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names
proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
Thanks, Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-07-2010 12:05, Artyom wrote:
Hello,
"build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution", and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like OSs.
So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace.
For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build should be something like
boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear.
It is indeed, but I don't actually think I agree... except that "build" is too generic. This command will be typed into a console a hundred times a day in some cases, so it should be rather short. "bjam" was good in this regard, but not really accurate any longer, as Volodya states.
IMHO, "build" is a very generic name.
Maybe something like "bbuild" (where the first "b" stands for Boost) might just help me to remember this is a boost related tool
Cheers,
-- Marco _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Agree. It's too much generic.
Some additional suggestions:
boostb bmake bbv2 mkbb
My preference would be for "bmake" although "mkbb" is also ok. My first thought there was "make boost build?" though, and that's not what it does. But either is both distinctive and easy to type, so... +1 for bmake (or mkbb). - -1 for boost_build! /Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMRXgsAAoJEKd8gmwzkHPJbe8H/isLWruRBhh03Dwq1r0esR2D GwA2K5/r4/e6RsO2eaZ4Q66hJC4cQv8/iMEiMzvCb4kY35U4w9HMVjSW9b9gDxDB wSZnQ3O1gT8H+eS1bnFE+7pUxiOoLmiTltXMMAkRsVsNtbjFlAlhV5qc0lpJ0taj ntGrBZI1J0vylpMH5sA5gaSWi5e6yXA1nKvnzWJi2KmoCNMlaFrtgDJ20MaciPnb T03BXgAwobdSIgsfhNv2smCwkHP4yd5unzCSEBeTGKIhb3JMUCs/qeDxwj/+Qnhx 8IjukwN4GpcTaAtUaEFcfRaYeYQTz5nMXJN68pfl3RE5FkEMAw07u2AZyGiZsgc= =+9Y4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis
On 20-07-2010 12:05, Artyom wrote:
"build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution", and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like OSs.
So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace.
For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build should be something like boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear.
It is indeed, but I don't actually think I agree... except that "build" is too generic. This command will be typed into a console a hundred times a day in some cases, so it should be rather short. "bjam" was good in this regard, but not really accurate any longer, as Volodya states.
I disagree with your rationale. First, command history is available in all shells, even cmd.exe on Windows, so one isn't likely to type the name hundreds of times per day. Second, there are numerous mechanisms available for shortening a long name when that proves desirable, without imposing a single short name on all. My suggestion: build_boost. While "boost" isn't a prefix in that name, it reads very nicely in English. Furthermore, if "Boost.Build" remains as a library/project name, then the reversal in "build_boost" is useful to avoid conflation of the two names. That is, the binary isn't the library/project and vice versa, so distinct but related names are useful. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis
On 20-07-2010 12:05, Artyom wrote:
"build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution", and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like OSs.
So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace.
For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build should be something like boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear.
It is indeed, but I don't actually think I agree... except that "build" is too generic. This command will be typed into a console a hundred times a day in some cases, so it should be rather short. "bjam" was good in this regard, but not really accurate any longer, as Volodya states.
I disagree with your rationale. First, command history is available in all shells, even cmd.exe on Windows, so one isn't likely to type the name hundreds of times per day. Second, there are numerous mechanisms available for shortening a long name when that proves desirable, without imposing a single short name on all.
My suggestion: build_boost. While "boost" isn't a prefix in that name, it reads very nicely in English. Furthermore, if "Boost.Build" remains as a library/project name, then the reversal in "build_boost" is useful to avoid conflation of the two names. That is, the binary isn't the library/project and vice versa, so distinct but related names are useful.
But, "build_boost" sounds like a command that, well, "builds" something called "boost", no? And Boost.Build has significant use to build things that are not "Boost C++ Libraries". - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Stewart, Robert wrote:
My suggestion: build_boost. While "boost" isn't a prefix in that name, it reads very nicely in English. Furthermore, if "Boost.Build" remains as a library/project name, then the reversal in "build_boost" is useful to avoid conflation of the two names. That is, the binary isn't the library/project and vice versa, so distinct but related names are useful.
But, "build_boost" sounds like a command that, well, "builds" something called "boost", no?
Isn't that the point? It is used to build Boost libraries individually and collectively, right?
And Boost.Build has significant use to build things that are not "Boost C++ Libraries".
Are they not related? _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Stewart, Robert wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Stewart, Robert wrote:
My suggestion: build_boost. While "boost" isn't a prefix in that name, it reads very nicely in English. Furthermore, if "Boost.Build" remains as a library/project name, then the reversal in "build_boost" is useful to avoid conflation of the two names. That is, the binary isn't the library/project and vice versa, so distinct but related names are useful.
But, "build_boost" sounds like a command that, well, "builds" something called "boost", no?
Isn't that the point? It is used to build Boost libraries individually and collectively, right?
Not really. It's used to build C++ projects, of which "Boost C++ Libraries" is one example. If we cared only about building one project, then the question of naming would not matter much -- 'build' would be just fine. - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Not really. It's used to build C++ projects, of which "Boost C++ Libraries" is one example. If we cared only about building one project, then the question of naming would not matter much -- 'build' would be just fine.
I'm going to assume that it wouldn't be limited to C++ projects Who can resist chiming in on this? Here's my contribution: Among the attributes I would like to see in such a system are: Declarative Recurrsive Language Independent Comprehensive Easy to use Transperant Automatic and of course it's a Project Build System So checking anagrams of the above attributes a couple of possibilities suggest themselves: CLEARBS - Comprehensive Language independent Easy Automatic Recurrsive Build System. uh oh - that doesn't quite work, maybe CLEAR or CLEARD Project Build System. or (D)REACT Project Build System - (Declarative) Recurrsive Easy Automatic Comprehensive Transparant Project Build System READ Project Build System - Recurrsive Easy Automatic Declarative Project Build System READLI Project Build System - (pronounced read-li) - Recurrsive Easy Automatic Declarative Language Independent Project Build System Excluding CLEAR_BS (my personal favorite), REACT has a good flavor: I change something, the build system reacts to it. I'm sure that doing this is a lot more fun than doing the actual work is going to be. Robert Ramey
How about "boost.build"? A bit unconventional with the dot, but easier to type than an underscore, and having the command name match the project name would avoid all possible confusion.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> 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. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
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. If you do change the name, how about contracting to "bam", as in "wham bam" I guess, the only difficulty I see is that there appears to be a virus of that name.... but then there are viruses of almost every name already... John.
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". This is silly. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Eric Niebler wrote:
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". This is silly.
There's nothing silly here. We're solving a real problem that confuses real users. - Volodya
On 7/20/2010 1:54 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
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". This is silly.
There's nothing silly here. We're solving a real problem that confuses real users.
Then I vote for Robert's suggestion: CLEARBS -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On 7/20/2010 1:54 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote
There's nothing silly here. We're solving a real problem that confuses real users.
I think it's more confusing that our build files are called 'jamfile' and '*.jam'. 'bjam' is pretty meaningless. On 20 July 2010 18:58, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
Then I vote for Robert's suggestion: CLEARBS
If you don't want to read this thread then ignore it and it'll go away. There's no need to be crabby. Daniel
On 7/20/2010 1:58 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 7/20/2010 1:54 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
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". This is silly.
There's nothing silly here. We're solving a real problem that confuses real users.
<snip wildly inappropriate comment from yours truly> Apologies. How about I try to add something constructive? I think you'll create more confusion than you'll clear at this point by changing names. Good or bad, folks are used to bjam. And you'll create a lot of churn for boost, boost's users, boost packagers, and other users of boost.build who probably have a lot of scripts that depend on the name being 'bjam'. I don't see the benefits outweighing the costs. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Hi, On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
Apologies. How about I try to add something constructive? I think you'll create more confusion than you'll clear at this point by changing names. Good or bad, folks are used to bjam. And you'll create a lot of churn for boost, boost's users, boost packagers, and other users of boost.build who probably have a lot of scripts that depend on the name being 'bjam'. I don't see the benefits outweighing the costs.
There is also the risk that the new name may end up with "(formerly known as bjam)" commonly appended to it, and thus not clear up any confusion at all. Regards, Eugene
-----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
On 7/21/2010 11:42 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
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 ;-) It seems easy to me to avoid confusion and bugs due to changing the name: simply replace bjam with a wrapper executable that calls the real one after first warning about use of the deprecated name. At some future point, the wrapper executable may be removed, but it need not be anytime soon (Boost 2.x ;) ).
As for reinforcing the boost brand, I think boostie and boosty are better than boost because they are better distinguished from the Boost libraries themselves. -Matt
On 10-07-20 4:45 AM, Vladimir Prus 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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
How about "boostb" for Boost Build? We type "boost" many times a day and "boostb" is probably the most efficient name possible. Unlike Robert, I don't use the command history for builds so something typing friendly would be appreciated.
On 07/20/2010 12:45 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
Please, leave it as it is. As others have noted, the change will add problems to maintainers of various scripts, which I'm sure we all are more or less. I'm not convinced that the change of the name we all got used to to whatever other name will reduce the confusion. There is quite an amount of information online, including articles, blogs, forum and ML posts, about the tool being referred to as bjam. All this information is easily searchable with Google (e.g. typing "bjam" brings references to bjam and Boost.Build at the top of the page). In fact, from my perspective, the name is tightly associated with Boost.Build already, and there is no need to come up with another alternative. Besides, as far as I understand, the jamfiles syntax is based on the Jam language, so the name bjam does have its merit, unless you also want to switch to another language with the rename (in which case I would vote for dropping it altogether in favor of a more widespread build system, such as CMake). If the naming issue does arise often with users, I would suggest correcting the docs. Perhaps, Boost.Build and Boost.Jam docs (and, I suppose, libraries as such) should be just merged.
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 07/20/2010 12:45 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
Please, leave it as it is. As others have noted, the change will add problems to maintainers of various scripts, which I'm sure we all are more or less.
I'm not convinced that the change of the name we all got used to to whatever other name will reduce the confusion. There is quite an amount of information online, including articles, blogs, forum and ML posts, about the tool being referred to as bjam. All this information is easily searchable with Google (e.g. typing "bjam" brings references to bjam and Boost.Build at the top of the page). In fact, from my perspective, the name is tightly associated with Boost.Build already, and there is no need to come up with another alternative.
Besides, as far as I understand, the jamfiles syntax is based on the Jam language, so the name bjam does have its merit, unless you also want to switch to another language with the rename
Unless you've missed that, a Python port of Boost.Build is progressing on a full speed, so there will be partial switch to a different language.
If the naming issue does arise often with users, I would suggest correcting the docs. Perhaps, Boost.Build and Boost.Jam docs (and, I suppose, libraries as such) should be just merged.
This is also planned. - Volodya
what about fiat (as in 'lux fiat', latin for (in the beginning) light was made"). Interestingly, in latin is also an imperative, so you can say "fiat lux" as in "make light". seem short and probably not taken for build systems. --
AMDG Maurizio Vitale wrote:
what about fiat (as in 'lux fiat', latin for (in the beginning) light was made"). Interestingly, in latin is also an imperative, so you can say "fiat lux" as in "make light".
Actually, fiat is present subjunctive. "light was made" would be lux factus est.
seem short and probably not taken for build systems.
Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name. In Christ, Steven Watanabe
NOTE: this post will most probably be frowned upon and regarded as OT even though it treats other OT constructs. Why do we have to push down whatever theist leaning we have into other people's throat? I think it is totally inappropriate to use this forum as an evangelism channel. I do not care if the person just use it as a social phrase or not, and am sure that the following phrase would irritate people after a few hundred repetitions: In Muhammed we trust. /David Typed on an iPhone On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Maurizio Vitale wrote:
what about fiat (as in 'lux fiat', latin for (in the beginning) light was made"). Interestingly, in latin is also an imperative, so you can say "fiat lux" as in "make light".
Actually, fiat is present subjunctive. "light was made" would be lux factus est.
seem short and probably not taken for build systems.
Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name.
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:18:36 -0400 David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> wrote:
NOTE: this post will most probably be frowned upon and regarded as OT even though it treats other OT constructs.
Why do we have to push down whatever theist leaning we have into other people's throat?
I think it is totally inappropriate to use this forum as an evangelism channel.
I do not care if the person just use it as a social phrase or not, and am sure that the following phrase would irritate people after a few hundred repetitions:
In Muhammed we trust.
/David
Typed on an iPhone
On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Maurizio Vitale wrote:
what about fiat (as in 'lux fiat', latin for (in the beginning) light was made"). Interestingly, in latin is also an imperative, so you can say "fiat lux" as in "make light".
Actually, fiat is present subjunctive. "light was made" would be lux factus est.
seem short and probably not taken for build systems.
Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name.
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
<off topic> No offense to either Steven or David intended, and I don't intend to carry this discussion along these lines (re theism or otherwise) any further; however correction and/or clarification is needed here: Moslems do not worship Muhammad [nor Christ for that matter], (upon both of them be peace). </off topic> Best, -- Manfred
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 21:18 -0400, David Bergman wrote: [snip]
I do not care if the person just use it as a social phrase or not, and am sure that the following phrase would irritate people after a few hundred repetitions:
Wait... Are you talking about this one?
In Muhammed we trust.
/David
... Or this one?
Typed on an iPhone
-- Braden McDaniel <braden@endoframe.com>
On Jul 21, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 21:18 -0400, David Bergman wrote:
[snip]
I do not care if the person just use it as a social phrase or not, and am sure that the following phrase would irritate people after a few hundred repetitions:
Wait... Are you talking about this one?
In Muhammed we trust.
/David
... Or this one?
Typed on an iPhone
--
Well, I sure wasn't talking about this one:
Braden McDaniel <braden@endoframe.com>
I understand that some people view their religious inclinations so natural that they incorporate religious statements in their every day communication. But, I know that people would be upset by somebody starting each and every post with their atheist "belief", such as God is as real as Santa Claus or even facts, like Atheism correlates highly with IQ at levels above 2 SD And, I fail to see how such promotions of metaphysical ideas have a place in this Boost list. But, perhaps promotion of Christian ideas in every single post is a proper omission from such a rule? So, unless you are eager to see other people's metaphysical manifestations in every post, please stop that silliness. Thanks... /David
On 7/21/2010 9:18 PM, David Bergman wrote:
NOTE: this post will most probably be frowned upon and regarded as OT even though it treats other OT constructs. <snip>
Let's be accepting and get back to the technical discussion. Thanks, -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
David Bergman wrote:
NOTE: this post will most probably be frowned upon and regarded as OT even though it treats other OT constructs.
Why do we have to push down whatever theist leaning we have into other people's throat?
I think it is totally inappropriate to use this forum as an evangelism channel.
I do not care if the person just use it as a social phrase or not, and am sure that the following phrase would irritate people after a few hundred repetitions:
In Muhammed we trust.
/David
I think there's a better way to think about this. Almost everyone here has some personal quirks, habits and practices that many of us find annoying or distracting. I could go on about my own pet peeves but this fact isn't going to change. We just have to ignore it and concentrate on making progress. My advice is suck it up and move on. Robert Ramey
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:09:51 -0700 Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Maurizio Vitale wrote:
what about fiat (as in 'lux fiat', latin for (in the beginning) light was made"). Interestingly, in latin is also an imperative, so you can say "fiat lux" as in "make light".
Actually, fiat is present subjunctive. "light was made" would be lux factus est.
seem short and probably not taken for build systems.
Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name.
+1 -- Manfred
Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name.
I've been folllowing this for its entertainment value. But one thing I'm REALLY not getting. Is this new build system going to be: a) same interface/language as the current bjam with a different implemenation b) a new interface/language c) a backwards compatible interface with an enhanced capability. If it's a) it should be bjam.exe if it's b) it should have a new name. if it's c) them maybe it should be called bjamv3. But the if its a) why bother re-writing it. I'm also intrigued by the statement that it's going to be written in python. It seems contrary to the whole boost idea. That we love C++ because it is the most effective way to make fast and powerful programs. Why would we want to use anything else here. If the build system is going to use scripts built in python - then to me it's not bjam so you might as well give it a whole new name. I still have no idea what this new build system is going to look like. But then I still can't figure out how the current one works. Robert Ramey
"Steven" == Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> writes:
Steven> AMDG Steven> Maurizio Vitale wrote: >> what about fiat (as in 'lux fiat', latin for (in the beginning) >> light was made"). Interestingly, in latin is also an imperative, >> so you can say "fiat lux" as in "make light". >> Steven> Actually, fiat is present subjunctive. "light was made" would be Steven> lux factus est. for that matter it would be 'lux facta est'. and fiat is very imperative although the same is also the third person present subjunctive. But I agree it is not a past participle and for this mistake I've already imposed upon me the appropriate penance. >> seem short and probably not taken for build systems. >> Steven> Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name. I thought the OP asked exactly for a new name and I suggested one. I don't see any particular problem in BLOB being the command you run for building stuff in the Boost.Build infrastructure, for any value of BLOB. I don't personally use bjam when using boost and really i couldn't care less how it is named or renamed.
On 07/25/2010 09:03 AM, Gottlob Frege wrote:
I don't see any particular problem in BLOB being the command you run for building stuff in the Boost.Build infrastructure,
BLOB is a great name. What does it stand for - Boost Library Of Build?
FWIW, in some Russian slang BLOB has means closed-source and potentially insecure software. It is used by open-source evangelists to negatively refer to proprietary software. Not that I share their position, just thought that the association would be inappropriate.
In the effort to create a name that reflects the connection with Boost.Build, I believe I've seen "boost.build", "bbuild", and "bb" suggested. The former is too long, the latter too cryptic. How about "bbld"? That's short, an abbreviation of Boost.Build, and (in a quick Google search, at least) not very common within the computer field.
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
Thanks, Volodya
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder: How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? - Is it a democratic decision? - Or can the maintainers rename their stuff in whatever way they like? - Or do we need a review manager who will organize a review once the maintainers have come up with a new name? Regards, Roland
Roland Bock wrote:
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? - Is it a democratic decision?
No.
- Or can the maintainers rename their stuff in whatever way they like?
This comes closest to how it is actually working.
- Or do we need a review manager who will organize a review once the maintainers have come up with a new name?
No.
On 7/22/2010 9:22 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? There have been a lot of names proposed and quite a bit of dissension about the name changing at all due to build script breakage. However, I'm pretty sure the names not derived from "Boost.Build" are disqualified because they would either defeat the purpose of the renaming or they would require rebranding of Boost.Build in its entirety. And the concerns about build script breakage are nullified if my suggestion of leaving a (deprecated) bjam wrapper executable to call the new executable is used. So that still leaves a pretty long list, but at least they're all quite similar: bb bbv2 bbuild bboost boostie boosty buildb bmake bbmake baby babe b2 bbl bam bbt boob boobi
Apologies if I missed a few. -Matt
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
On 7/22/2010 9:22 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? There have been a lot of names proposed and quite a bit of dissension about the name changing at all due to build
However, I'm pretty sure the names not derived from "Boost.Build" are disqualified because they would either defeat the purpose of the renaming or
I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from the list. Google searches will be too revealing ;-) Paul script breakage. they would
require rebranding of Boost.Build in its entirety. And the concerns about build script breakage are nullified if my suggestion of leaving a (deprecated) bjam wrapper executable to call the new executable is used. So that still leaves a pretty long list, but at least they're all quite similar: bb bbv2 bbuild bboost boostie boosty buildb bmake bbmake baby babe b2 bbl bam bbt boob boobi
Apologies if I missed a few. -Matt
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from the list.
Google searches will be too revealing ;-)
Paul
And how good is B2 ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit or BBL? http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BBL Be Back Later sounds bad for a fast(?) build system and if we want to avoid religious connection, how good is BBT? Bhaktivedanta Book Trust http://www.krishna.se/ Bo Persson
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
On 7/22/2010 9:22 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? There have been a lot of names proposed and quite a bit of dissension about the name changing at all due to build script breakage. However, I'm pretty sure the names not derived from "Boost.Build" are disqualified because they would either defeat the purpose of the renaming or they would require rebranding of Boost.Build in its entirety. And the concerns about build script breakage are nullified if my suggestion of leaving a (deprecated) bjam wrapper executable to call the new executable is used. So that still leaves a pretty long list, but at least they're all quite similar: bb bbv2 bbuild bboost boostie boosty buildb bmake bbmake baby babe b2 bbl bam bbt boob boobi
Apologies if I missed a few. -Matt
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
as bjam.exe is for buidling the code. my suggestions (1)bmake (2)bbuild (3)blmake (4)blbuild On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> wrote:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from the list.
Google searches will be too revealing ;-)
Paul
And how good is B2 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
or BBL?
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BBL
Be Back Later sounds bad for a fast(?) build system
and if we want to avoid religious connection, how good is BBT?
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Bo Persson
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
On 7/22/2010 9:22 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? There have been a lot of names proposed and quite a bit of dissension about the name changing at all due to build script breakage. However, I'm pretty sure the names not derived from "Boost.Build" are disqualified because they would either defeat the purpose of the renaming or they would require rebranding of Boost.Build in its entirety. And the concerns about build script breakage are nullified if my suggestion of leaving a (deprecated) bjam wrapper executable to call the new executable is used. So that still leaves a pretty long list, but at least they're all quite similar: bb bbv2 bbuild bboost boostie boosty buildb bmake bbmake baby babe b2 bbl bam bbt boob boobi
Apologies if I missed a few. -Matt
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Thanks and Kind Regards, Mahendra Panpalia
On 7/22/2010 12:55 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from the list.
Google searches will be too revealing ;-)
Paul And how good is B2 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
or BBL?
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BBL
Be Back Later sounds bad for a fast(?) build system
and if we want to avoid religious connection, how good is BBT?
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
http://www.krishna.se/ Baby is fine from a work safety perspective but perhaps not from a distinctive keyword perspective. I admit that boob and babe are bad candidates. As I mentioned before though, boobi does not have the same pitfalls as boob (at least with Google, not sure about other engines). I admit that there are other candidate names that look and sound more professional than "boobi" though. :)
Bo, are you being facetious? If not... we don't need to bother about our build system command overlapping with an unrelated acronym in a non-overlapping domain. Trademarks deal with the same problem. A business named "Patriot Dry Cleaners" does not infringe on Patriot Software's IP (and vice versa).
Hello This suggestion:
Use a decorrelated name (e.g 'stand'), or something that has no explicit meaning, like foreign language ('brik'), or acronyms (many already proposed). If it's possible avoid numbers, I have the feeling it ships better.
Made me think of the word "grok". Maybe that can be a direction, or not. ( bgrok? bbgrok? just grok? ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok The previous propositions also made me think of something "tool" based, as it's a "boost(ified/er) build tool" : bbtool Seems less problematic than bb Or maybe something more explicit : "generate" : bgen ? On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 19:55, Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> wrote:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from the list.
Google searches will be too revealing ;-)
Paul
And how good is B2 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
or BBL?
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BBL
Be Back Later sounds bad for a fast(?) build system
and if we want to avoid religious connection, how good is BBT?
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Bo Persson
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
On 7/22/2010 9:22 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing names within boost? There have been a lot of names proposed and quite a bit of dissension about the name changing at all due to build script breakage. However, I'm pretty sure the names not derived from "Boost.Build" are disqualified because they would either defeat the purpose of the renaming or they would require rebranding of Boost.Build in its entirety. And the concerns about build script breakage are nullified if my suggestion of leaving a (deprecated) bjam wrapper executable to call the new executable is used. So that still leaves a pretty long list, but at least they're all quite similar: bb bbv2 bbuild bboost boostie boosty buildb bmake bbmake baby babe b2 bbl bam bbt boob boobi
Apologies if I missed a few. -Matt
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
Boosters,
I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever you want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam", which is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no longer good.
First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam" names proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the point where many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there, and become upset.
Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic Jam", which is not true.
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.
Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
Thanks, Volodya
What about a latin translation? (english) build --> (latin) constructum construxi construo condo texo Regards, Fernando.
participants (39)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Arnaud Degroote -
Artyom -
Belcourt, Kenneth -
Bo Persson -
Braden McDaniel -
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis -
Bruno Santos -
Christopher Jefferson -
Daniel James -
David Bergman -
Emil Dotchevski -
Eric Niebler -
Eugene Wee -
Fernando Pelliccioni -
Giorgio Zoppi -
Gottlob Frege -
Ian Emmons -
John Maddock -
Klaim -
mahendra panpalia -
Manfred Doudar -
Marco Guazzone -
Matthew Chambers -
Maurizio Vitale -
Murilo Adriano Vasconcelos -
Paul A. Bristow -
Philippe Vaucher -
Pierre Morcello -
Robert Kawulak -
Robert Ramey -
Roland Bock -
Sohail Somani -
Stephan Menzel -
Steven Watanabe -
Stewart, Robert -
Thomas Klimpel -
Vladimir Prus -
Vladimir Prus