ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: Speaking of deprecation...
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:46:29 GMT
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote:

> > I DON'T WANT TO UPGRADE THE BUILDFILE, and certainly not to be forced
> > to do that.
> So, don't upgrade your version of Ant then.

But another project I depend on will. And probably another developer
will have the newer version of ant installed.

I typically have at least 8 projects checked out at a time,
including 3 versions of tomcat, and I already have 2 versions
of ant installed.

> > - you can write a makefile for a 10 year old make and it'll work with any
> > newer make. I don't have to upgrade my makefile with every release of gnu
> > make.
> Ant is NOT make.  We should not necessarily make comparisons between the
> two.  Getting rid of inconsistencies and cruft and keeping Ant's design and
> internals clean is a worthier goal than backwards compatibility in many
> respects.

I'm not sure I understand you - ant and make are 2 tools that serve the
same purpose ( or at least you can use either of them to build a project).
I don't think there are too many things you can do in ant you can't do
in make. Ant started as a 'better' make.

There are a lot of inconsistencies and cruft in make - yet all versions
of gnumake do their best to support all of those, and it seems all
those developers believe that respecting a defacto standard is more
important and worthier goal than making their design simpler.

One big difference is that we use XML - which is the magic tool that
is supposed to allow everyone to speak the same language and
different programs to communicate with each other. Yet we can't get
2 versions of ant to understand the same XML file.

Wait until someone figures out that using the latest features in JDK1.4
will make ant's design cleaner and simpler - and maybe we can add an
deprecation warning every time someone is using JDK1.3, then remove the
support for it.

> > - you can write a html page that displays in netscape2.0. People don't
> > have to upgrade their pages every for every new browser.
> Writing real web applications that would satisfy your customer or company
> and the end users who expect much more is not possible with such "least
> common denominator" HTML coding though.  The stakes are bumped up to 4.0
> browsers and up these days for all projects I've been involved in lately.

Yes, I'm a very satisfied customer when I can't connect to a bank because
they require internet explorer... And I'm sure a company should
be happy they lost a customer because I couldn't buy without
booting in windows.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message