ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <davidjen...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Need Ammo in Make vs. Ant argument...
Date Sat, 09 Jun 2001 04:47:43 GMT
Hi,
On 2001.06.08 21:03:40 -0400 Peter Donald wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 6/8/01 -0500, Lance Hankins wrote:
<snip>
> >* Ant has a lot of built in support for Java and J2EE based builds, how
> effective is it at building C++ based stuff (particularly with large
> CORBA
> based systems).   We have a very heterogeneous environment here (C++
> systems, CORBA/C++ systems, CORBA/Java systems, J2EE based systems, etc).
> 
> 
> Ant *could* be made to work with native systems (ie write java tasks to
> wrap compilers etc) however it currently is not well suited to this task.
> I
> wouldn't recomend it (unless you were willing to write the tasks). I
> would
> maybe use a mixed approach with make for native generation, compiles and
> linking but use ant for the j2ee/java specific stuff.
> 

I've seen frequently "ant is no good for c++", and I wonder why.  I had no
trouble writing a (linux/gcc) c++ compilation for an admittedly not
enormous (about 80-90 files) project using apply for cpp > o and execon for
linking.  It doesn't have the extensive lists of dependencies sometimes
found in make files, but then javac doesn't have that kind of dependency
checking either.  So just why is make better?

david jencks

> 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