22 messages in com.perforce.jammingWho is using Jam?
FromSent OnAttachments
Matt...@neweast.ca06 Feb 1997 06:35 
Step...@PC-Plus.DE06 Feb 1997 08:07 
Step...@PC-Plus.DE06 Feb 1997 08:22 
Matt...@neweast.ca06 Feb 1997 09:08 
Dian...@whistle.com06 Feb 1997 11:20 
Ron ...@diba.com06 Feb 1997 11:47 
Shiv...@amulet.mti.sgi.com06 Feb 1997 11:54 
Tony...@illustra.com06 Feb 1997 12:15 
Jym ...@sybase.com06 Feb 1997 12:48 
Laur...@sybase.com06 Feb 1997 15:53 
Blumer06 Feb 1997 16:13 
Ambe...@praja.com06 Feb 1997 17:10 
Step...@PC-Plus.DE07 Feb 1997 01:11 
Tim ...@ftlsol.com07 Feb 1997 17:56 
Tim ...@ftlsol.com07 Feb 1997 18:11 
Chri...@perforce.com09 Feb 1997 16:22 
JimJ...@caldera.silverplatter.com10 Feb 1997 05:05 
Step...@PC-Plus.DE10 Feb 1997 05:18 
Laur...@sybase.com10 Feb 1997 10:00 
Jame...@wgold.demon.co.uk11 Feb 1997 02:37 
Tim ...@ftlsol.com11 Feb 1997 16:34 
Jame...@wgold.demon.co.uk12 Feb 1997 02:29 
Subject:Who is using Jam?
From:Tim ...@ftlsol.com (Tim @ftlsol.com)
Date:02/07/1997 05:56:31 PM
List:com.perforce.jamming

C. Coles writes:

Hi,

I am very close to convincing my management to convert our multi- platform build system from vanilla make to jam. In order to give them a warm feeling, they would like to know which companies (or otherwise) admit to using jam in a big way. So, who are you all out there :-) ?

Although this is for internal justification only, please let me know if you don't want anybody else to know because the jam build will seep into customer visible stuff and it may happen that the justification for jam stuff may at some point be presented to customers.

TIA Wilf Coles wi@cix.compulink.co.uk wilf@iclosl.com

We are using Jam to port a 600,000 line NT application to Solaris, Linux, and possibly other flavors of UNIX. (Unfortunately, I can't name the product nor the company who owns it because the port hasn't been officially announced). Currently we use Jam on Solaris and Linux. I intend to convert to Jam on NT "real soon now".

Before Jam we used Imake and GNU make. We moved from Imake to Jam for 3 reasons:

1. We couln't get Imake working to our satisfaction on NT.

2. We found Imake to be very fragile - even seemingly innocuous changes to configuration files had a nasty habit of breaking everything. Furthermore, problems can be very hard to track down.

3. SPEED

We like Jam a lot. Certainly, it's vastly superior to Imake. However, there's still plenty of room for improvement.

First, I'd like to see the Jambase extended. How many of you have written your own rules for building shared libraries, DLLs, or project variants (debugged, profiled, etc.)? We need a mechanism for getting extensions back into the official Jambase.

Second, while I agree that compiling the Jambase into Jam (2.1 plus) is a good idea, I'd still like a (global) Jambase file for extensions/overrides common to all projects (Jamsite anyone?). My current solution is a Jam wrapper which loads a global Jambase using Jam's "-f" option. The problem with that is I have to duplicate the entire Jambase.

Third, it's still not fast enough. The main culprit is scanning header files for dependencies. I'd like to see dependencies cached between runs and only updated when a new source file has been added or a source or header file in the cached dependency graph has been modified.

Finally, I agree with a previous poster, the string handling could be improved/extended. Jam in Perl sounds like a great idea, but I havn't had time to investigate CONS (?).

But as I said, we like Jam a lot. Keep up the good work! Tim

--- Tim Writer Tim.@ftlsol.com FTL Solutions Inc. Toronto, Ontario, CANADA