Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: How to develop without an IDE? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:38:32 +0200 Lines: 53 Message-ID: <9vn03nF9fbU1@mid.individual.net> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net vdzFvgv752zcU8ic7YvzOw8ThazUqhOE9hPEag0lZr60s0Dlo= Cancel-Lock: sha1:HbS2B1ikkNMmXJbbJBZ2X+wLECw= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13840 On 24.04.2012 00:15, Rui Maciel wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote: > >> On 23.04.2012 06:57, 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 it >> can get really awkward to do things with tool A which would be extremely >> 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. Whoever claims he is Java developer AND unaware of ant cannot be a professional. Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy. >>> Also, gnumake can do so many more things than just build source >>> code. I use it to update my html files and pdf files from >>> Latex sources, and other such things. >> >> No wonder because make doesn't do *any* of these things. Make evaluates >> timestamps along dependencies (mostly between files) and invokes other >> programs that do all the work. GNU make additionally has an extremely >> large database of predefined rules, has functions and other capabilities. > > 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. 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. > Maybe build-in rules aren't needed, considering Make's static pattern rules. > > http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Static-Pattern 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. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/