Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 58978 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2001 06:41:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 58969 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 06:41:02 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010321173413.0082d370@alphalink.com.au> X-Sender: gdonald@alphalink.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:34:13 +1100 To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org From: Peter Donald Subject: Re: [ANN] Collecting requirements for Ant2 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 09:25 20/3/01 -0800, Bill Brooks wrote: >What I'd like to see in Ant 2.0 is a much more thought out declarative >language for the XML build control files that stays firmly within the non >procedural programming paradigm. +1000000000000000 ;) >With this, we need extensive documentation and examples so that people >with little programming background understand why build.xml files work the >way they do with the syntax they have. ouch - are you volunteering ? ;) >Other than the obious advantages, this would have three good side effects. > >1. Obviate the need for continually-asked for, half-baked, control > stuctures. >2. Prevent Ant from becoming a monstrosity of a scripting language like > perl >3. Lower the traffic on ant-user and ant-dev initiated by people who think > that all languages must be somehow procedural in order to be useful and > that all those who think otherwise are hopeless purists who > must be worked around by hosting external Ant tasks on SourceForge. While I think it is pure lunacy to encourage/host/enable control structures and think that it is better to have one simple method for doing X. However ... I would not be willing to block the ability by any means and encourage anyone to host tasks/forks elsewhere if they want to do something differemt (like those foul control structures ;]). Over last 3-4 months I have been learning that it is often better to have activity, quantity and low quality .. err lots of places for improvement ;) when building a community. Why do you think I kick the Ant nest every now and again (hint: it's to see activity ;-]). Secondly - documentation. To do this correctly we need good docs. Its a pity duncan left as he was going to write a book on Ant (or maybe still is?). Without a volunteer to do this I think that too many bad practices will be in place to "force" our design belief on others (even if it is for the best). Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*