From: Anthony Williams (anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 08:36:30
> > "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:uy98h95tf.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> > >
> > > I'm mostly convinced, but there's also the familiarity issue to
> > > consider. People are used to 'Makefile'. A guy just came up to me
> > > today and told me he put boost aside because building involved a
> > > program with an unfamiliar name, 'bjam'. I'm not kidding. He didn't
> > > look past the name :(
> >
> > I have seen this mentality over and over. Unfamiliarity is a big issue when
> > it comes to adopting new libraries - particularly if that unfamiliarity is
> > in the building of the library. It is a sad-but-true fact :-(
Especially if the build tool requires any setting up --- when bjam was first
introduced, I had such trouble getting it to build things that I reverted back
to using the makefiles. Thankfully, it all works quite well now.
As an aside: I'm sure it's been covered before, but what _are_ the key benefits
we get from using jam over make?
Anthony
-- Anthony Williams Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd. Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response.