ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Ant 2 suggestions
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:08:01 GMT
At 08:05 AM 6/13/01 -0700, Eric Richardson wrote:
>> When we talked about this last time we talked about a "File Aspect" that
>> was applied to tasks. Ant2 will support this approach but will require some
>> support from task writers. It would be interesting to try but I don't think
>> there is any plans to do that at the moment.
>I took a look at the ant 2 features document
>( and the
>requested-features.html and my proposed approach makes alot of sense.
>Everything could be super-simplified and the DTD or schema would be
>pretty much trivial. I also recognized that if a task was defined in a
>process methodology way, they could be used internally to ant as well.
>Much of what ant is trying to do has been done in make and sh. This
>approach could provide a unification and a clean syntax. I studied
>process methodology, scheduling and simulation in school so I spent alot
>of time looking at exactly these types of problems. I realize this is
>probably much too radical but ant is way more complicated than it needs
>to be. Having different tag names for every task is not necessary.

I guess it depends on your audience. The original poster made reference to
scheme+lisp. With a few inbuilt symbols you could construct anything
essentially. I guess much like you he saw it better to have fewer
predefined symbols with large expressability. This is great for experts and
those fluent in the language but is less comprehensible to novices. In this
respect it mirrors progress in natural languages of using fewer symbols in
more complex arrangements as the language advances.

Considering that many of the users I know are non or semi technical, I
don't really see this as an option.



| "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               |

View raw message