ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Vernum <>
Subject RE: if and unless attributes for all Tasks
Date Thu, 17 May 2001 02:38:19 GMT

From: Roger Vaughn []

> BTW, I'm still hoping for mutable properties (or
> perhaps a separate set of variables.)  ;)  Used
> *judiciously*, they can, in certain situations,
> simplify scripts quite a bit. 

There is no way to enforce that they will be used
*judiciously* though.
(See below)

> Now, if someone goes
> wild and creates what you describe above, well then,
> that's his fault, not mine.

Only because you can distance yourself from ant.
If Ant makes it easy to write crap, then it reflects
on Ant.

Is it C++'s fault that many C++ programs
  * Leak memory
  * Have pointer errors
  * Have major interdependency problems
  * Have methods that are non-virtual when they should be virtual.
  * and so on?

I say yes.
C++ doesn't require that you have any of the above problems,
but it encourages a style of programming that causes them.

C++ is most strongly criticized because of the code people
write in it, as opposed to any actual language features.

If Ant includes the "wrong" features, it too will be criticized
because the build files will turn to crap.
I'm not going to argue whether task level if/unless will do that,
but I will argue that there is a set of features which are both
useful and wrong.

I have stated a number of times that I think make is given a bad
Make (especially GNU make) is not a particularly bad tool, but
I have *never* seen a publically distributed project that had a
decent makefile.
People hate make because people hate makefiles.
And people hate makefile because 90% of makefiles are a pile of crap.
It doesn't need to be that way, but make just gives it to you on a
silver platter.

View raw message