From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-06-08 08:54:33
--- In boost_at_y..., jk_at_s... wrote:
> 6 Jun 2001 19:29:49 +0400 David Abrahams ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> >Have you bothered to read my previous response to your suggestion
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/12558 where I
mentioned that the
> >boost membership rejected a requirement that anything as heavy-
duty as
> >Python be installed for our build?
>
> But I'd rather install "heavy-duty" (and useful otherwise) thing
like Python
> than totally useless *for me* Jam (because I'm using GNU make). In
both cases
> I must to install something (well, Python is already installed :).
>
> (I'm not criticizing your work.)
The problem is, Python is a *heavy* installation, where as Jam is
small. In fact, on my system after bootstrapping the total space
requirement for using Jam is only 140 KB. I can justify installation
of such a tool for building libraries. It's much harder to justify
installing Python, which takes a lot of space, for automating builds
only (i.e. if I had other reasons for using Python it would be more
justifiable... but most users don't have other reasons).
I know the Python users think this is the best approach to take, but
I'm sorry, I just can't agree. This has been debated, and Python
lost, so let's move on and stop beating the dead horse.
Bill Kempf