Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-ID: <20010609044946.80204.qmail@web13408.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Diane Holt <holtdl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Need Ammo in Make vs. Ant argument...
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20010609004743.Y1068@HP.home.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

--- David Jencks <davidjencks@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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?

How did you deal with header-file changes?

Diane


=====
(holtdl@yahoo.com)


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/