Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: How to develop without an IDE? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 115 Message-ID: <9358467.971.1335299792975.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbps5> References: <4f94338d$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4f94765c$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4f949830$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <9vlns0Fv8cU1@mid.individual.net> <9vn03nF9fbU1@mid.individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335299793 22190 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2012 20:36:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:36:33 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Received-Bytes: 5722 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13867 Rui Maciel wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote: >> Rui Maciel wrote: >>> Robert Klemme wrote: >>>> Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >>>>> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than >>>>> mixing things. >>>> >>>> Which, if followed religiously, will lead you into a situation where i= t >>>> can get really awkward to do things with tool A which would be extreme= ly >>>> easy with tool B. >>> >>> This isn't necessarily a problem, particularly if a person is already >>> familiar with tool A while being completely unaware that tool B even >>> existed. >>=20 >> Whoever claims he is Java developer AND unaware of ant cannot be a >> professional. =20 >=20 > It was a hyperbole. And we were supposed to know that how...? I see no exaggeration in your comment at all. > And surely you are aware that a considerable number of people who spend a= =20 > portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their=20 > profession. Are you claiming that non-professionals should deliberately flout best prac= tices, simply because they don't make a living at it? The main point here, which you're ducking, is that no one can be a Java pro= grammer, professional or otherwise, without having heard of Ant or being mo= re than superficially aware of it. Your statement about being "unaware that= tool B even existed" is utterly irrelevant to this issue. > > Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead > > of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy. >=20 > It isn't. But wasting time checking each and every alternative that some= =20 > bloke on the internet said was the winning strategy is also not a winning= =20 > strategy. This isn't a case of that, so why mention it? >>> There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I see it as an extremelly >>> valuable feature. It's a pain in the neck to shoe-horn custom build >>> rules to an automated build system which was developed with them as an > >> afterthought. > >=20 > > But there is something wrong with claiming "gnumake can do so many more > > things than just build source code" - because it does not even compile > > source code. >=20 > It isn't expected to. That's the job for the compiler, which is called b= y=20 > the automated build tool. =20 >=20 > If I'm not mistaken, this is also what ant does. Someone correct me if I= 'm=20 > wrong. > http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/javac.html Ant does all sorts of things superficially similar to make, but better when= it comes to Java. >>> Maybe build-in rules aren't needed, considering Make's static pattern >>> rules. >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Static-Pattern >>=20 >> Maybe or really? Please provide a proper static pattern rule which does >> a similar job as ant does. As far as I can see still get one javac >> invocation per .java file. This is hugely less efficient than what ant >> does. >=20 > As you can imagine due to the fact that I've started this thread, I never= =20 > managed to do this nor know how to pull this off. The reason I said that= =20 > maybe built-in rules aren't needed to build java programs with the make t= ool=20 > is the fact that it is quite possible to build software written in a numb= er=20 > of programming languagea without relying on built-in rules. =20 >=20 > Nevertheless, after a quick google, I stumbled on a tutorial on how to=20 > "write and use makefiles to build java applications". It doesn't rely on= =20 > static pattern rules, and instead uses suffix rules. I don't know how we= ll=20 > this works, but you are free to give it a try and see if it doesn't work. >=20 > On a side note, I don't believe that the point is to prove that the make= =20 > tool can be made to work better than alternatives such as ant, but only t= hat=20 > it actually works. It would have to be better to justify its use, since Ant is the standard. A= s it happens, make is worse for Java projects than make, so that's a huge s= trike against it.=20 Unwillingness to learn the standard tool (which really only takes about an = hour or two to learn, BTW) is a pitiful and non-engineering reason to avoid= using Ant. --=20 Lew