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: | David Turner (davi...@freetype.org) |
| Date: | 06/29/2001 04:07:39 AM |
| List: | com.perforce.jamming |
Hello Arnt,
Arnt Gulbrandsen a écrit :
Btw, I think the number of people who _will_ take the time to learn jam (over make) but not perforce (over cvs) is about nil. Of course, that number of people mustn't be confused with the number of people who'd _like_ to contribute.
Well, I'd like to seriously counter that !!
I know quite a few Unix people who would _really_ love to get away from the _atrocities_ of the damned GNU build tools when a sufficiently mature alternative is available.
I also know some Windows developers who would like to develop for Unix, but are less than appealed at the idea of coping with the "gang of four" (i.e. AutoMake+AutoConf+LibTool+Make) [1]
I believe that Jam has a _big_ potential, but is still rather limited currently (e.g. it's inability to build DLLs or programs that use them correctly). Fortunately, it's sufficiently flexible to allow the addition of custom rules to overcome some of its shortcomings, and for most developers, it's a real God's send. It has, at least, drastically simplified the build and testing process of a couple cross-platform projects.
Boost is a drastic improvements over the original Jam design and promises to bring industrial-strength builds with a very simple system.
In short, the benefits of using Jam and Boost are tremendous, even if they still require some learning.
(Yes, I'm passionnate about this.. but I used to work in a large company that used its own complex build system based on make and a bunch of Perl scripts, and believe me, that was really tough..)
On the opposite, I believe that the benefits of switching from CVS to Perforce, while being real and proven, are of lesser importance to the casual developer.
That's why I think that once Jam and/or Boost mature enough, you'll see developers from all over the planet literally switch to Jam in droves, and ditch the "Make" of the worlds :-)
Well, it's just opinion anyway ;-)
- David Turner
[1] And yes, I realise that AutoConf and LibTool will still be needed with Jam/Boost on Unix systems..