[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, "FT Jam" and Boost - Jos Backus - com.perforce.jamming

19 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, ...

From	Sent On	Attachments
David Turner	29 Jun 2001 01:48
Werner LEMBERG	29 Jun 2001 03:00
Robert Cowham	29 Jun 2001 03:57
David Turner	29 Jun 2001 04:07
David Turner	29 Jun 2001 05:29
Arnt Gulbrandsen	29 Jun 2001 06:42
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)	29 Jun 2001 06:49
Jos Backus	29 Jun 2001 09:30
Beman Dawes	29 Jun 2001 10:29
David Turner	29 Jun 2001 11:07
Jos Backus	29 Jun 2001 11:23
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)	29 Jun 2001 12:45
Werner LEMBERG	30 Jun 2001 23:36
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)	01 Jul 2001 05:53
Roger Lipscombe	02 Jul 2001 03:15
David Turner	02 Jul 2001 06:40
David Turner	02 Jul 2001 06:54
Jos Backus	02 Jul 2001 11:07
Paul Moore	02 Jul 2001 12:37

Subject:	[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, "FT Jam" and Boost
From:	Jos Backus (jo...@cncdsl.com)
Date:	06/29/2001 09:30:23 AM
List:	com.perforce.jamming

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:49:27AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:

2. I /like/ the fact that features.jam and the toolset definitions are not compiled into the Jam executable. It keeps the build system configurable and customizable. It should be possible to add features, toolsets, and variants without recompiling the executable.

Hear, hear. Maybe when Jam was designed speed was an issue, but it seems to be a much cleaner design to keep the interpreter (jam) and the script (Jam{base,file}, etc.) separate. This has the added advantage of avoiding binary rebuilds when the script changes, which can be a pain when you have to maintain versions of jam for multiple platforms.