ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Vernum <Tim.Ver...@macquarie.com.au>
Subject RE: Need Ammo in Make vs. Ant argument...
Date Sat, 09 Jun 2001 05:48:27 GMT
From: Lance Hankins [mailto:lhankins@focus-technologies.com]

> Any ammunition will be greatly appreciated :)

I can get you some research (that I think was from Sun) that showed
that for a large system, 10% of the code was in the build process.

But any metric of a large in house development system should give
similar results.

When you realise the size of the work done by the build engineers
(and management rarely does) you have to stop and ask
 a) Why?
 b) How can we make this as productive as possible.

If the build process is taking 10% of your code, then it deserves
the same considerations as any other technical decision.

Sure COBOL can be used to develop systems, it available, it's 
supported and it will work, but no one actually does that
anymore.
The world has moved on, and has found better tools to do the
job.
It's the same with build process.
The build scripts are *part of your product*. Forcing people 
do use make for them, when there are better options is as 
irresponsible as forcing people to use COBOL.

There are better tools than make. Including jam/cons/ant.


Mime
View raw message