ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Holt <>
Subject Ant -> Make? Ick! - Never! (was: RE: [PATCH] New <case> task)
Date Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:54:45 GMT
--- Peter Donald <> wrote:
> No offense but thats because you are still thinking that ant is make and
> treating it the same way.

Just for the record: I haven't used Make on any regular basis for quite
some time -- and even back when it was the only build-tool available to
me, I never thought all that much of it. I switched to Jam as soon as I
could (having helped in putting it together :), and that's what I've used
whenever possible since.

Make wasn't all that bad to begin with, but it got suckier and suckier the
more bloated it got, and the more flavors of it people felt a need to
create. The worst build cleanups/conversions I've dealt with have been
systems that were based on Make -- and the worst of the worst were the
ones that had shell-scripts on top of it to drive the whole thing.

And that's my main concern about Ant. Believe me, I really like Ant, alot.
I'd still use Jam for anything that has C/C++ build needs, since Ant
doesn't do those -- but for Java-based stuff, I wouldn't use anything but
Ant (well okay...unless an even better tool came along :)  But the thing I
don't like about it as it currently exists is the need it has to rely on a
wrapper-script, or on the <script> task, or on having a bunch of separate
targets that don't really do anything, all to make up for not having a
test for equality. I think test-for-equality is such a basic functionality
that I've gone ahead and modified my to allow for it (as well
as for expanding a name-given-as-a-property [eg., if="${prop}", which I
think should also be a basic capability, and actually assumed it was,
until I tried it and it didn't work]), and now that I have those two
things, I'm completely satisifed. I'm no longer bumping into that lack of
a test-for-equality limitation and gritting my teeth, trying to figure out
how pretzled I'm going to have to get in order to get around it. On the
other hand, it does mean that anytime I upgrade my Ant, I'm going to have
to reintegrate that change.

I'm all for putting the brakes on bloat -- I wouldn't really want to see
something like a case-statement included in the basic stuff (although I
think it's perfectly reasonable to offer it as an optional task, since
optional tasks should be able to do whatever anyone wants them to) -- but
it just seems to me that the brakes got slammed on a bit prematurely.

In the end, though, I expect you & Stefan and I will end up just having to
agree to disagree on this one.



Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.

View raw message