ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: for-each (another proposal)
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:05:43 GMT
On Wed,  4 Jul 2001 05:25, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > On Wed,  4 Jul 2001 01:55, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> > > Pete, once again you've amazed me by dropping into sarcastic tones and
> > > some false sense of superiority when responding to a reasonable email.
> >
> > And I am constantly amazed by the people who gather to insult me after
> > it. It seems to give them some sort of satisfaction to chastize that
> > baffoon Pete.
> I only do it when your responses warrant it.

whats is comical is if I were to say that then you would insult me more. Joy.

> > > And I disagree that telling us to go learn another language/system is a
> > > reasonable solution to iteration.  Basic iteration, which will probably
> > > cover 90% of the needs I've seen discussed on this list, is trivial to
> > > implement directly within ant.
> >
> > thats nice. So what about that 10% who aren't covered?
> In those cases, the right answer may be to roll your own task.  

Isn't that exactly what we are trying to avoid? What ant-dev is constantly 
critisized for? 

> No
> solution will ever cover all cases.  The goal should be to address the
> majority of the needs with a consistent framework.


> The number of times that I've seen requests for it/then and looping in
> ant indicates that it is a basic need.

The number of times I have seen people ask for pointers in java indicates 
that it is a basic need.

> I still can't understand how you can claim that if/them and looping are
> too complex and then turn around and suggest we use XSLT instead.  How
> is that less complex?

It is not less complex - I have never claimed it was. What I do claim is that 
the core of Ant will remain simple for the rest of us and the minority who 
need the extra expressibility can pay for it.

> You claim that Peter Vogel is "just droning the same stuff".  How many
> people need to drone the same request before ant-dev considers it a
> reasonable request?  

We considered it a reasonable request the first time. I actually remember 
considering much the same questions about a year ago (though I wasn't a 
committer then). It was decided against. Repetition is unlikely to make 
anyone change their mind. It has effectively made me ignore some people 
because they are only wasting others time.

> You state: "I am a believer in doing one thing well. Currently ant does
> too many scripty things and encourages too many bad practices. These
> will hopefully be eliminated in ant2 but who can tell at this stage."
> I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well? 

Go read first section of front page on ant site.

> I know that I'm repeating a previous
> statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
> of the community it is supposed to serve?

no good. But I will repeat the question in reverse. What good is a tool that 
can't be understood by it's users? I have offered a solution to your 
problems. You choose not to accept it.



| "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