ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: if and unless attributes for all Tasks
Date Thu, 17 May 2001 01:05:40 GMT
At 10:07  16/5/01 -0700, Roger Vaughn wrote:
>> >deal with, and in the end make it harder for the
>> build
>> >scripter to understand the system as a whole.  
>> 
>> this is false.
>
>Pretty bold statement there, Peter.  I'm glad you're
>the authority on this.  Perhaps you can explain why
>most people I encounter don't understand build
>scripting at all - in Ant *or* make.

simple psychology. People can understand complexity in chunks. Make the
chunk too big and you loose understanding of most. It is much better to
have several layers - each layer doing a specific task.

>> You see the absurdity of that arguement - it is the
>> same as the one you are
>> offering ;)
>
>Ah, yes, I love it when people take sane discussions
>and drive them to extremeism.

heh - you thought your arguement was sane? ... oh.

>I'll tell you why - it has nothing to do with
>scripting or "tabs before commands".  It has
>everything to do with the javac task.  This one task
>simplifies the Java dependency checking that is nearly
>impossible to do in make (unless you want to write a
>rule for every Java file in your system.)

it would be simple enough to write a script to do this - so if thats the
reason you are using ant...

>> Actually you are the one who is proposing to follow
>> in makes path. You want
>> us to integrate everything into one tool. This will
>> force all our users to
>> deal with the complexity and eventually tools will
>> be built to reduce the
>> complexity (enter auto-*). Before too long there
>> will be little reason to
>> use Ant because it would just be a java version of
>> make - and makes been
>> around for ever - so why not use that.
>

>This is the one outrageous claim you guys keep making
>that your arrogance won't let you see through.  Which
>make tool is the most popular?  Vanilla make?  Nmake? 
>or GNU make?  From what I can see the answer is GNU
>make - 

agreed.

>because it gives the developer more features
>and thus more power.

disagree. It is because it is part of GNU tool chain that it is popular.
The complexity is part of GNUs embrace and extend policy - they want to add
features that aren't available in other tools so that people will migrate
to GNUMake and not go back.

>And by the way, I do in fact still use make for C
>builds - I tried this in Ant and it just isn't up to
>the task.  (Not cleanly, anyway.)

yup.

>> Tool chains are layered for a purpose - I suggest
>> you look carefully at the
>> reasons because you seem to have some funny
>> opinions.
>
>Well, I guess if asking a build tool to fulfill its
>charter and actually perform a complete system build
>is asking too much, then yeah, I guess I do have some
>funny opinions.

It's almost like compilers - it is obviously silly that they don't
dopreprocesing inside the compilation tool. Damn silly.

>If you will recall, I pushed heavily for XSLT
>preprocessing of Ant scripts months ago, but got
>shouted down for it then, too.

No idea why you think that - that is still my opinion of best path for ant2.


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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message