| Thomas G. Marshall 2005-08-16, 5:08 pm |
| Dale King coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>
> Oops, sorry that was Tor. Got the T's  .
>
>
> Then you assume incorrectly. For something like C with a well-written
> makefile correctness is guaranteed (if you abide by the rule that
> files can only get newer).
>
> For ant that correctness is not guaranteed at all. That comes about by
> making the dependency checking ad-hoc.
You said "well-written makefile". Does not ant require something
"well-written" as well? If make is not "well-written", it does not
guarantee anything either.
> For Java compilation in Ant specifically the javac task only gives you
> the correctness of javac which is not good enough. They added a
> depends task to try to make up for the lack of dependency checking,
> but it has limitations and will fail to rebuild dependencies on
> constants. There is the JavaMake program that has an ant task which
> does guarantee correctness, but at a sacrifice of efficiency.
I'll be glad to take your word for it here. That sacrifice for efficiency
can't possibly be all that much, or can it?
>
> And the problem is there is a lot of hype with Ant that isn't true.
> People here that Ant is a better make and believe it.
>
>
> It would not be appealing to anyone that has actually used a batch
> file for day-to-day building.
That's a stretched assumption. I had a home grown set of csh scripts that I
used for over 5 1/2 years, and loved it. I had used make prior, and have
since, but I miss my concoction.
|