Re: [boost] Boost, not LEWG

29 Jun 2020


      On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 7:58 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
...
On 2020-06-29 15:37, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
...
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:47 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost
mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
All users already have a build system. Most have it in the form of an
IDE. It should be trivial to add the library's source files to your own
build system for review purposes. If the library design makes that hard
it should be a red flag.
Having the world compiled along with your application is one possible
use case, but certainly not the only one. Many of us prefer to build
external dependencies separately and only once instead of every time
with the application.
After *acceptance* use a package manager.
...
One point where putting external sources in your project doesn't work is
configure-time checks, which are implemented in the library build
system. I see nothing wrong with such checks, and don't consider them a
"red flag".
I see them as a red flag.
...
...
Furthermore, in order for users to be able to use Boost, they need a
    way
    to build it, that is compile and install artifacts of every library
    in a
    common place. There needs to be a common interface for doing this.
    Currently, this is achieved by Boost.Build, so any new library has to
    integrate with it. If it uses a different build system internally, it
    must at least support being invoked from Boost.Build. Without this
user
...
experience will be severely hampered.
That can happen after acceptance. Expecting libraries to use B2, or any
particular build system, for review increases the barrier of entry.
It prevents reviewers from trying out the library. It might also suggest
that the library have not been built or tested prior to the review.
It would be rather unlikely for that to be the case given the preceding
history of a library before getting to the review stage.
...
...
[snip]
However,
    personally I'm opposed to having mode than one build systems per
    library, as that unnecessarily increases maintenance burden.
Having more than one build system in your library reduces the friction
for users. Hence it increases the set of likely users. I think that's
worth the maintenance burden.
Well, let's just say I disagree.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net