Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <20010109222919.30951.qmail@web9305.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:29:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Roger Vaughn <rogervaughn@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: rvaughn@pobox.com
Subject: Re: The RIGHT Direction for ANT (was Re: Problem using script task)
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> Probably the biggest flaw in your argument is to
> have
> lumped together Make and Ant as equivalents.  Ant
> is clearly much easier and much more powerful and
> much more portable than Make.  That's why Ant is
> attractive.  It has little to do with dependency
> tracking.

I have to defend Jerry here - this smacks too much of
the "newer is always better" thought.  Make is better
than Ant - in certain circumstances.  Try building C
programs with Ant and you'll see what I mean.  I will
agree that Ant is far, far better than Make at
building most Java programs.

As for your templating approach, give XSLT a try
instead of scripting.  It's very powerful for this
use, and has the huge advantage of expressing your
build files in only one language - XML.  With XSLT,
you can define new tags for all kinds of things - even
for generating multiple Ant targets, for standard
property init sections, for standard target sets, etc.

roger


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/