ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antoine Levy-Lambert <anto...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: suggestion : Ant 1.8 full dist to include a 'scripting lang'
Date Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:04:21 GMT
Hello,

I like very much your ideas Jesse and my experience is similar to yours.
I shy away from complex ant projects (several build files importing each
other ..., lots of antcall, ...) because I find them hard to master. I
am not sure of understanding myself all the rules concerning scopes of
properties, targets, references, across <import/>, <ant/>, <antcall/>
... Uhhm, perhaps we should add a page "ant syntax, scopes ..." in the
manual.

I do not have problems with writing build files in XML format, but I
have a problem with our syntax and I am always afraid to break
something, actually more than with a compiled language.

What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this, merge
ant and ant-contrib to have the <if/> ... at home and go out of this
business of creating targets to set properties ?

I worked previously for a large software house building litterally
1000's of projects using ant. Most of the build files of the individual
projects were generated, either using velocity and templates, or by a
java command line program using a macro language as its input.

Talking about a scripting language to "marry" with ant, I am surprised
no one mentioned groovy.


Regards,

Antoine
Jesse Glick wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone would bring it up...
>
> +1 (is >1 allowed?) for including a scripting language implementation
> in the standard Ant distribution, so that we can rely on it being
> there. In fact I would suggest making Ant 2.0 assume a script as its
> input, and have a compatibility mode for old XML scripts.
>
> -1 (or <-1 if allowed) on writing our own DSL.
>
> -0 on rewriting existing tasks in the Ant distribution in another
> language. Would just confuse the code base. Focus on users of Ant, not
> developers of Ant. Of course users should be able to write tasks in a
> scripting language if they prefer. Ideally this would be the same
> thing as just writing a plain old library file.
>
> -0.5 on Lisp or Scheme. Don't get me wrong, I probably would have been
> miserable as a teenager were it not for CLtLR2. But the last thing we
> want to do is make life harder for a random Java developer to build
> his or her program. Ant-in-Lisp would be far far better than the
> current XML mess, to be sure, but I think a relatively mainstream
> language like Rhino would be a lot more accessible. Lots of Java
> developers already know JavaScript from web development anyway.
> BeanShell is also an easy step for Java developers. JRuby and Jython
> are probably a bit more accessible than Lisp but less than JavaScript
> and BeanShell.
>
> My personal experience with Ant has always been that the tasks are
> great, and the control flow is maddening. To write an interesting
> script, I generally spend most of the time wrestling with if and
> unless attributes, artificial targets set up to define properties at
> the right times, weird <pathconvert> hacks, refid->string conversions,
> selectors, and other gobbledygook. Generally all of this could be
> replaced with a few lines of elementary JavaScript or any other
> general-purpose language with sensible bindings and library functions.
>
....
> I don't buy the argument that Ant is currently "declarative". It's
> nothing of the sort in my experience. When you think about what a
> build script does, it runs a sequence of actions, possibly with some
> control flow, and uses variables which are defined through a
> potentially complex series of interactions with the environment.
> That's a program, not a declaration. Make tried to impose a Prolog-y
> model onto the problem, with the result that only Prolog programmers
> could understand makefiles, and recursive make never really followed
> the model anyway. Ant is easier to understand because it works more
> like a sequential program, and file up-to-date handling is bundled
> into tasks. So why is it written in a cumbersome XML dialect which is
> incapable of expressing elementary computations?
>
> -J.
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message