Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #13793 > unrolled thread

How to develop without an IDE?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 16:15 +0100
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-04-22 11:18 -0400
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2012-04-22 16:22 +0000
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 23:22 +0100
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 16:44 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 15:03 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-24 11:24 -0300
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:07 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-24 14:07 -0300
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:10 -0700
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-25 21:04 -0300
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:29 -0400
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-29 20:32 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-30 07:09 -0300
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 22:16 -0400
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 10:19 -0700
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 18:56 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 19:15 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 18:45 -0400
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 09:58 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:10 -0400
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:13 -0700
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:34 -0400
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-29 20:35 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 22:09 -0400
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 10:23 -0700
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:03 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-01 16:18 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:33 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 19:21 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 18:49 -0400
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:06 +0000
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:06 +0000
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:07 +0000
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 20:26 -0400
                                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 11:38 +0000
                                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-06 08:41 -0700
                                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 10:24 -0700
                                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 10:18 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:06 +0000
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 10:12 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:08 -0400
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-25 00:57 -0700
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 13:48 +0100
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:17 -0400
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-23 20:55 -0400
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2012-04-22 08:41 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-22 12:36 -0400
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-22 11:35 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-22 17:21 -0400
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 16:15 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-22 19:45 -0400
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 20:28 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-22 23:57 -0500
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-04-23 02:06 -0500
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-23 02:09 -0500
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-23 01:26 -0700
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-04-23 04:36 -0500
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-23 21:11 +0200
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 23:15 +0100
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-23 15:44 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-23 21:15 -0300
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 02:33 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 18:59 -0700
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 16:43 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:44 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-04-24 20:23 +0000
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:18 -0700
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:42 -0400
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-24 08:38 +0200
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:20 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:20 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 13:36 -0700
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 02:09 +0100
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-25 07:55 +0200
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 12:18 +0100
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:37 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-25 01:01 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:20 -0700
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:50 -0400
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:17 -0400
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:27 -0400
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-29 11:16 -0700
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-29 14:33 -0400
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-29 22:48 -0700
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 22:03 -0400
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-30 22:59 -0700
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:09 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 11:01 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-02 12:21 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 14:20 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-05-02 14:41 -0700
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-02 16:52 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 18:31 -0400
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-06 14:19 -0700
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-07 11:16 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-22 10:17 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-04-22 19:11 +0000
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 02:43 +0100
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2012-04-22 23:32 +0100
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-23 00:33 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-04-23 10:25 -0700
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 23:38 +0100
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-23 15:50 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-04-23 16:21 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-23 22:09 -0300
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 13:53 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 08:12 -0700
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:16 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 08:14 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:11 -0400
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-29 13:21 +0200
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? JussiJ <jussij@zeusedit.com> - 2012-05-07 07:19 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 16:46 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 12:47 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:59 -0400
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:20 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-23 21:00 -0400
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 12:36 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 20:54 -0400
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 12:05 +0100
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:07 -0400
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:13 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-24 14:15 -0300
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 12:59 -0700
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 14:24 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:59 -0700
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 17:19 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 17:12 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:00 -0400
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2012-04-26 02:17 +1000
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:24 -0400
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 10:02 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? sony.gupta32@yahoo.co.uk - 2012-08-30 02:29 -0700
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-08-30 19:58 +0000
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:16 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-09-02 14:04 -0700

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#14366

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:49:11 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:03:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:09:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> I don't think anyone has claimed a need to learn any tool under
>>>>> the SUN.
>>>>
>>>>        Of course not.  Everyone and his dog says to use his tool.  The
>>>> collective of all that yammering is one should use every tool under
>>>> the sun.
>>>
>>> Not at all.

     All too often for me.  Granted, this seemed to happen more when I
was at uni.

>>       I have encountered many who each insist that the tools that each
>> uses is what I should be using.  Typically, they do not bother to find
>> out my needs before prescribing.  How good is such a suggestion?  Not
>> very.
>
>Suggesting tools that are used by millions of Java devlopers
>is a pretty good suggestion.

     Not necessarily.

     Does the suggested tool fit in with what I am doing?  Some people
make their suggestions without ever considering this.  Sometimes, one
can get wrapped around a pole following such suggestions.

     A suggestion that includes how the suggested tool could make it
easier/faster/better to do something might get my attention.  If the
person has looked at my situation and actually considers it some, he
might have come up with something of use.  I am much more receptive
then.

>>> As I have tried to explain several times now, then one should
>>> utilize other developers experience. If a huge portion of the
>>> Java developer community is using tool XYZ, then there must be
>>> something good about that tool. If developer NN suggest tool ABC,
>>
>>       Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
>> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
>> ever got released.
>
>Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
>to be similar concepts?

     Yes.  Both are advocacy groups with their own interests.
Sometimes, the developers are more interested in self-aggrandisement
than in suggesting something useful.  There is a reason we have the
term "fanboy".

>Otherwise I can not see the relevancy!
>
>>>>> The point people were trying to make is that you will not look
>>>>> good at the Java job market if you don't know ant - especially
>>>>> not with arguments like some of those posted here.
>>>>
>>>>        To your first sentence: Yes, I understand that not knowing
>>>> certain things can have an effect on getting jobs, but to judge
>>>> someone totally or substantially on whether he knows one particular
>>>> tool goes way too far.
>>>
>>> Unless the applicant can demonstrate good knowledge of all
>>> other relevant tool, then not knowing one of the basic
>>> tools like ant will cause the interviewer to assume that
>>> there are many other holes in the applicants toolbox.
>>
>>       Then, the interviewer is falling down on the job.  He should be
>> asking.
>
>You mean go through all relevant tools?
>
>That will be one very long interview!

     You mention "all relevant". Previously, you have been on about
commonly-used tools.  There is a difference.

     Besides, one hardly need go through a checklist of every tool.
Just ask what the interviewee has used.  If he does not mention
something of note, ask about it.

     You might get "Ant and Maven?  Not much.  LastCorp had a build
tool that was used across multiple languages.  They were very opposed
to breaking things up.  Their tool worked very well so after a while,
I went with the flow.  No point in arguing.  So I just know the bit
from when I was checking them out.  I did a few test builds, thought
both tools looked reasonable, but I was not going to be using either.
My personal programming is mainly in C, Assembler, and T-SQL."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13883

On 4/24/2012 10:03 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> I would prefer to develop
>>> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
>>> being forced to use another tool.
>>
>> The sound of the career death knells tolling.
>
> You are assuming that everyone's career depends on how well they are able to
> manually set up an ant build script to build a Java project.  That's a bad
> assumption.  I would bet that a significant number of people who write Java
> code for a living never bothered to manually tweak an ant build script, let
> alone took the time to learn that tool.

Almost no good Java developers.

Good Java developers like good developers in any language like
to learn and broaden their skills.

The "I don't want to do build scripts - I will leave that to the
integration engineers" developers will be considered second class
developers.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13893

On 04/24/2012 07:03 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>
>> Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> I would prefer to develop
>>> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
>>> being forced to use another tool.
>>
>> The sound of the career death knells tolling.
>
> You are assuming that everyone's career depends on how well they are able to

No, I'm not.

> manually set up an ant build script to build a Java project.  That's a bad
> assumption.  I would bet that a significant number of people who write Java
> code for a living never bothered to manually tweak an ant build script, let
> alone took the time to learn that tool.

My point went right over your head, apparently.

I was referring to your unwillingness to learn tools and skills needed for new 
environments. Your resistance to learning is what is the death knell. That's a 
universal requirement for success as a programmer, not just in Java, and 
without the commitment to learn and grow, you'll wither and die, or worse, end 
up a manager because your programming skills, such as they are, will utterly 
cease to be relevant and you won't be able to adapt for lack of practice. 
Bongggg.  Bongggg.

I'll take your bet. How much? Every single Java shop where I've worked since 
2000 or 2001 has used Ant, or later, Maven, or both to build Java 
applications. Every single Java programmer with whom I've worked in that time, 
and every one with whom I've associated in Java Users Groups, has been at 
least minimally conversant with Ant.

And what do you deem "significant"? The worst 5% of Java programmers? The 
worst 10%? How much to be significant?

In every profession there are the virtuosi and the, let's call them barely 
competent. Those in the Java world who refuse to learn the standards of that 
world doom themselves to the latter category, just as in any profession. Those 
who refuse to learn, or take the universal advice (has any of our experts 
advised you to ignore Ant and focus on make for Java?) are hurting themselves 
and all their clients. Do you really want to be that guy?

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13898

Lew wrote:

> On 04/24/2012 07:03 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>
>>> Rui Maciel wrote:
>>>> I would prefer to develop
>>>> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
>>>> being forced to use another tool.
>>>
>>> The sound of the career death knells tolling.
>>
>> You are assuming that everyone's career depends on how well they are able
>> to
> 
> No, I'm not.

Of course you don't.  Nevermind what you actually wrote, or how you 
proceeded to rant about how anyone's career is affected by it.


>> manually set up an ant build script to build a Java project.  That's a
>> bad
>> assumption.  I would bet that a significant number of people who write
>> Java code for a living never bothered to manually tweak an ant build
>> script, let alone took the time to learn that tool.
> 
> My point went right over your head, apparently.
> 
> I was referring to your unwillingness to learn tools and skills needed for
> new environments. 

As I've pointed out before, you repeatedly show that you have a bit of a 
problem in basing your arguments and criticism on unfounded assumptions.
In this case, how exactly do you go from "I would prefer" to 
"unwillingness"?  


> Your resistance to learning is what is the death knell.
> That's a universal requirement for success as a programmer, not just in
> Java, and without the commitment to learn and grow, you'll wither and die,
> or worse, end up a manager because your programming skills, such as they
> are, will utterly cease to be relevant and you won't be able to adapt for
> lack of practice.

here you are again with your wild assumptions and making up accusations as 
you go along.  I'm still not sure if you engage in this sort of behaviour 
because you honestly have difficulty reading other people's comments, or 
because you choose to intentionally misrepresent what they actually say to 
the point where you actually make stuff up to base your criticism.

In this particular case, you are trying to accuse someone who started a 
thread to help him learn how to manually set up a build process of... 
"unwillingness to learn" and "resistance to learning".  This is how much far 
off the deep-end you insist in putting yourself.


> Bongggg.  Bongggg.
> 
> I'll take your bet. How much? Every single Java shop where I've worked
> since 2000 or 2001 has used Ant, or later, Maven, or both to build Java
> applications. Every single Java programmer with whom I've worked in that
> time, and every one with whom I've associated in Java Users Groups, has
> been at least minimally conversant with Ant.
> 
> And what do you deem "significant"? The worst 5% of Java programmers? The
> worst 10%? How much to be significant?

I see you felt the need to leave the "no true scotsman" door opened for your 
silly argument.  You know quite well why you felt the need to set up that 
subterfuge.


> In every profession there are the virtuosi and the, let's call them barely
> competent. Those in the Java world who refuse to learn the standards of
> that world doom themselves to the latter category, just as in any
> profession. Those who refuse to learn, or take the universal advice (has
> any of our experts advised you to ignore Ant and focus on make for Java?)
> are hurting themselves and all their clients. Do you really want to be
> that guy?

Here you go again, making up accusations as you go along.  You can't help 
yourself, can you?  Far from me to screw up another of your baseless rants 
and raves, but where exactly did I said anything about "refusing to learn 
the standards"?  Nowhere.  Once again you felt the need make this stuff up.  
It's like you have a hard time dealing with reality and so you feel 
compelled to take refuge in your imaginary world, where everything is a 
figment of your imagination and the only connections to reality are only 
there for your personal convenience, and only when they are convenient.  
Once it isn't convenient, you just contradict yourself and proceed as 
before.

I've started this thread to try to get some helpful tips from knowledgeable 
and experienced people on how to set up an automatic build system that can 
be used through a CLI and doesn't depend on an IDE.  In the process I've 
received quite a few helpful tips, to which I'm grateful.  Yet, this 
discussion also managed to attract the likes of you, who appear to believe 
that it's acceptable to vent your frustrations with  your life by repeatedly 
assuming a petty and contentious attitude regarding anything at all, and  
inthe process wasting your time ranting and raving about accusations you 
repeatedly make up from the top of your heads.  You, with your anti-social 
attitude, your lies and your made-up accusations, are not helping others or 
even yourself.

So, if you don't have anything positive or helpful to add to any discussion 
then don't.  Don't even bother wasting your time writing and posting a 
reply.  Find another way to vent the frustrations you have with your life.  
This newsgroup doesn't need more noise to muffle those who are genuinely 
knowledgeable and helpful, and the world doesn't need yet another troll 
throwing a tantrum on the internet.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14003

On 4/25/2012 8:48 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> In every profession there are the virtuosi and the, let's call them barely
>> competent. Those in the Java world who refuse to learn the standards of
>> that world doom themselves to the latter category, just as in any
>> profession. Those who refuse to learn, or take the universal advice (has
>> any of our experts advised you to ignore Ant and focus on make for Java?)
>> are hurting themselves and all their clients. Do you really want to be
>> that guy?
>
> Here you go again, making up accusations as you go along.  You can't help
> yourself, can you?  Far from me to screw up another of your baseless rants
> and raves, but where exactly did I said anything about "refusing to learn
> the standards"?  Nowhere.  Once again you felt the need make this stuff up.

Let me quote:

#But wasting time checking each and every alternative that some
#bloke on the internet said was the winning strategy is also not a
#winning strategy.

> I've started this thread to try to get some helpful tips from knowledgeable
> and experienced people on how to set up an automatic build system that can
> be used through a CLI and doesn't depend on an IDE.  In the process I've
> received quite a few helpful tips, to which I'm grateful.  Yet, this
> discussion also managed to attract the likes of you, who appear to believe
> that it's acceptable to vent your frustrations with  your life by repeatedly
> assuming a petty and contentious attitude regarding anything at all, and
> inthe process wasting your time ranting and raving about accusations you
> repeatedly make up from the top of your heads.  You, with your anti-social
> attitude, your lies and your made-up accusations, are not helping others or
> even yourself.
>
> So, if you don't have anything positive or helpful to add to any discussion
> then don't.  Don't even bother wasting your time writing and posting a
> reply.  Find another way to vent the frustrations you have with your life.
> This newsgroup doesn't need more noise to muffle those who are genuinely
> knowledgeable and helpful, and the world doesn't need yet another troll
> throwing a tantrum on the internet.

You attack people and tell them not to reply??

Not the smartest move I have seen. More the opposite.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13837

On 4/23/2012 6:22 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> David Lamb wrote:
>
>> I've always used a combination of Emacs and make. Given your "single
>> makefile" question, though, I suspect you may have more sophisticated
>> needs than I do. Care to elaborate?
>
> There is nothing sophisticated in my needs.  The only reason I mentioned
> makefiles is that I'm already familiar with them.  I would prefer to develop
> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
> being forced to use another tool.

Yes, but you also need a tool that work well with Java.

Make does not.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13796

On 4/22/2012 8:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
> relying on an IDE?  If it is, where can I find any information on how to set
> up this sort of project?
>
> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single makefile.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Rui Maciel

I use Vim to edit, and a batch file to compile and jar up the classes. 
And often a batch file to start them as well.

-- 

Knute Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13799

On 4/22/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
> relying on an IDE?  If it is, where can I find any information on how to set
> up this sort of project?
>
> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single makefile.

Very few rely on their IDE to build for serious projects.

They use tools like Ant or Maven to build with.

You can also write the code without an IDE, but why not utilize
the extra support you get from a Java aware IDE.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13804

On 04/22/2012 09:36 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
>> relying on an IDE? If it is, where can I find any information on how to set
>> up this sort of project?
>>
>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single makefile.
>
> Very few rely on their IDE to build for serious projects.
>
> They use tools like Ant or Maven to build with.
>
> You can also write the code without an IDE, but why not utilize
> the extra support you get from a Java aware IDE.

OP: Be careful that your problem statement doesn't limit your solution space.

Arne knew that makefiles are not literally the best build mechanism for Java, 
so unlike those others who specifically dicussed make with you, he gave you 
the idiomatically Java equivalent.

I'm not aware of any prevalence of make in the Java build-and-deployment world.

Ant and Maven are the two most standard mechanisms. Real-life Java 
build-and-deployment systems are edifices of scripts (shell, Python, Ruby, 
...), continuous-integration (CI) platforms, Ant and/or Maven, 
intelligently-crafted logging (of the builds, not just the program runs), and 
often much more.

As a solo practitioner you can readily put together a decent ecosystem with 
open-source tools, e.g., for Java EE:

  git                    version-control repository
  Jenkins                continuous-integration framework
  Ant                    build system
  bash
  Python
  Junit                  unit test framework
  EasyMock               mock objects for testing code
  FindBugs               find bugs in source code
  Glassfish              application server
    Geronimo, JBoss
  Tomcat, Jetty          simpler app server
                         JSPs, no EJBs, JMX, etc., unless plugins
  Apache Web Server      HTTP server - all kinds of proxy magic, etc.
  EclipseLink, OpenJPA   JPA - Java Persistence API)
  Postgres               RDBMS
  Your favorite editor(s) and IDE(s)

You certainly do not need an IDE for any of that, and quite frankly, none of 
your build and test stuff should use any IDE files directly, nor should most 
editor- or IDE-specific files be in the trunk of your code repository.

With such a suite of tools, I still would add NetBeans or Eclipse (among the 
free options) or Aptana (based on Eclipse) as an IDE. While an IDE is not 
essential to system development, it is very helpful.

They not only help with code development, they make great dashboards to manage 
your libraries, databases, servers, logs, test frameworks, and other tools, 
and the interactions amongst them. We programmers tend to monomaniacally focus 
only on how IDEs help code production. They are also very handy, particularly 
for the solo stages (developer workstation or individual consultant's 
production box), to manage the myriad operations matters.

http://git-scm.com/
http://jenkins-ci.org/
http://ant.apache.org/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://www.cygwin.com/
http://www.python.org/
http://www.junit.org/
http://www.easymock.org/
http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/
http://glassfish.java.net/
http://geronimo.apache.org/
http://www.jboss.org/
http://tomcat.apache.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/jetty/
http://httpd.apache.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/
http://openjpa.apache.org/
http://www.postgresql.org/
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
http://netbeans.org/
http://eclipse.org/
http://www.aptana.com/

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13806

On 4/22/2012 2:35 PM, Lew wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 09:36 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/22/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
>>> relying on an IDE? If it is, where can I find any information on how
>>> to set
>>> up this sort of project?
>>>
>>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
>>> makefile.
>>
>> Very few rely on their IDE to build for serious projects.
>>
>> They use tools like Ant or Maven to build with.
>>
>> You can also write the code without an IDE, but why not utilize
>> the extra support you get from a Java aware IDE.
>
> OP: Be careful that your problem statement doesn't limit your solution
> space.
>
> Arne knew that makefiles are not literally the best build mechanism for
> Java, so unlike those others who specifically dicussed make with you, he
> gave you the idiomatically Java equivalent.
>
> I'm not aware of any prevalence of make in the Java build-and-deployment
> world.

make and Java is like square form and wheels. Not a good mix.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13808

On 4/22/2012 2:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 2:35 PM, Lew wrote:
>> On 04/22/2012 09:36 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
>>>> relying on an IDE? If it is, where can I find any information on how
>>>> to set
>>>> up this sort of project?
>>>>
>>>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
>>>> makefile.
>>>
>>> Very few rely on their IDE to build for serious projects.
>>>
>>> They use tools like Ant or Maven to build with.
>>>
>>> You can also write the code without an IDE, but why not utilize
>>> the extra support you get from a Java aware IDE.
>>
>> OP: Be careful that your problem statement doesn't limit your solution
>> space.
>>
>> Arne knew that makefiles are not literally the best build mechanism for
>> Java, so unlike those others who specifically dicussed make with you, he
>> gave you the idiomatically Java equivalent.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any prevalence of make in the Java build-and-deployment
>> world.
>
> make and Java is like square form and wheels. Not a good mix.
>

it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if one is 
also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for 
native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for 
which make is already used.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13809

On 4/22/2012 7:15 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 2:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/22/2012 2:35 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2012 09:36 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>>>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built
>>>>> without
>>>>> relying on an IDE? If it is, where can I find any information on how
>>>>> to set
>>>>> up this sort of project?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
>>>>> makefile.
>>>>
>>>> Very few rely on their IDE to build for serious projects.
>>>>
>>>> They use tools like Ant or Maven to build with.
>>>>
>>>> You can also write the code without an IDE, but why not utilize
>>>> the extra support you get from a Java aware IDE.
>>>
>>> OP: Be careful that your problem statement doesn't limit your solution
>>> space.
>>>
>>> Arne knew that makefiles are not literally the best build mechanism for
>>> Java, so unlike those others who specifically dicussed make with you, he
>>> gave you the idiomatically Java equivalent.
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any prevalence of make in the Java build-and-deployment
>>> world.
>>
>> make and Java is like square form and wheels. Not a good mix.
>>
>
> it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if one is
> also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for
> native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for
> which make is already used.

I would rather call ant from make or make from ant to handle those
situations.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13811

On 4/22/2012 4:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 7:15 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 4/22/2012 2:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2012 2:35 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>> On 04/22/2012 09:36 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>>>>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> relying on an IDE? If it is, where can I find any information on how
>>>>>> to set
>>>>>> up this sort of project?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
>>>>>> makefile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very few rely on their IDE to build for serious projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> They use tools like Ant or Maven to build with.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can also write the code without an IDE, but why not utilize
>>>>> the extra support you get from a Java aware IDE.
>>>>
>>>> OP: Be careful that your problem statement doesn't limit your solution
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> Arne knew that makefiles are not literally the best build mechanism for
>>>> Java, so unlike those others who specifically dicussed make with
>>>> you, he
>>>> gave you the idiomatically Java equivalent.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of any prevalence of make in the Java
>>>> build-and-deployment
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> make and Java is like square form and wheels. Not a good mix.
>>>
>>
>> it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if one is
>> also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for
>> native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for
>> which make is already used.
>
> I would rather call ant from make or make from ant to handle those
> situations.
>

yes, this works as well.

I guess it is probably whichever is more convenient.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13812

On 4/22/2012 10:28 PM, BGB wrote:

>>>
>>> it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if one is
>>> also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for
>>> native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for
>>> which make is already used.
>>
>> I would rather call ant from make or make from ant to handle those
>> situations.
>>
>
> yes, this works as well.
>
> I guess it is probably whichever is more convenient.

I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
mixing things.

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.

As long as the idea that drives the tool is: Perform this action
to update these prerequisites that this target depends on, then better
to use one tool that does this better and for many other things, not
just .java files.

In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.

Using one tool for all, is better, because one becomes better
at using this one tool, and things are integrated better.
gnumake+bash is pretty much all what I need.

I tried ant, and found that I am doing the same thing I
am already doing in my Makefile, just had to use different
syntax. (I also did not like XML syntax). Also looked at Ruby
script, and few other things. They all pretty much try to do
what Make allready does but using different syntax.

It is very easy to use gnumake to build Java and  make jar files and
all. Here is a link showing Makefile for Java from the best book
on gnumake "Managing Projects with GNU make" by Robert Mecklenburg

http://www.makelinux.net/make3/make3-CHP-9#make3-CHP-9

Chapter 9 is all about using make for build Java.

As others said. If you are using an IDE with its own build
system. It is better to have your own makefile to build
your tree, independent of what the IDE has. This way, if
you changed IDE, or move your tree somewhere else where
this IDE is not available, you can still build your tree
any where.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13814

Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> wrote:
> 
> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
> mixing things.

[SNIP]
 
> In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
> other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.

You see no contradiction here?

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13815

On 4/23/2012 2:06 AM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> Nasser M. Abbasi<nma@12000.org>  wrote:
>>
>> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
>> mixing things.
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
>> other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.
>
> You see no contradiction here?
>

What contradiction?

I use Makefile to build all the my programs?

Do you mean, why I use different languages? And I should
use one programming language? is that what you mean?

If I can find one programming language that meets all my
programming needs, then I'll use that one language, but
have not found one yet.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13817

On 4/23/2012 12:09 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 2:06 AM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
>> Nasser M. Abbasi<nma@12000.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
>>> mixing things.
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>> In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
>>> other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.
>>
>> You see no contradiction here?
>>
>
> What contradiction?
>
> I use Makefile to build all the my programs?
>
> Do you mean, why I use different languages? And I should
> use one programming language? is that what you mean?
>
> If I can find one programming language that meets all my
> programming needs, then I'll use that one language, but
> have not found one yet.
>

yeah...

in my case, my project currently uses 5 different programming languages 
(to a greater or lesser degree, list does not include makefiles), 
several smaller/special purpose DSLs, and an assortment of specialized 
file-formats.


I also generally use Make as well...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13818

Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> wrote:
> 
> What contradiction?
> 
> I use Makefile to build all the my programs?
> 
> Do you mean, why I use different languages? And I should
> use one programming language? is that what you mean?
> 
> If I can find one programming language that meets all my
> programming needs, then I'll use that one language, but
> have not found one yet.

I'm just saying that "using one good tool for everything" is no more
(nor less) the right approach when it comes to build systems than when
it comes to programming languages.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13823

On 23.04.2012 06:57, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 10:28 PM, BGB wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if
>>>> one is
>>>> also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for
>>>> native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for
>>>> which make is already used.
>>>
>>> I would rather call ant from make or make from ant to handle those
>>> situations.
>>>
>>
>> yes, this works as well.
>>
>> I guess it is probably whichever is more convenient.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> As long as the idea that drives the tool is: Perform this action
> to update these prerequisites that this target depends on, then better
> to use one tool that does this better and for many other things, not
> just .java files.

Interestingly GNU make's large built in rule database does not contain 
anything related to compiling Java.  How do you create your Makefiles in 
a way as to invoke javac only for those files which have changed - 
especially in light of the fact that one Java source file might create 
multiple .class files?

> In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
> other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.
>
> Using one tool for all, is better, because one becomes better
> at using this one tool, and things are integrated better.
> gnumake+bash is pretty much all what I need.

I'm with Leif: if you drink your own cool aid you should be throwing out 
all those languages and resort to language [ ] only.

> I tried ant, and found that I am doing the same thing I
> am already doing in my Makefile, just had to use different
> syntax. (I also did not like XML syntax). Also looked at Ruby
> script, and few other things. They all pretty much try to do
> what Make allready does but using different syntax.

I disagree: ant is very different from make.  Ant has built in tasks and 
knows itself how to accomplish them.  You can even teach it more tasks 
via its extension interface.  ant rules for building Java projects are 
almost certainly a lot simpler than the same for make - as that example 
proves.

> It is very easy to use gnumake to build Java and make jar files and
> all. Here is a link showing Makefile for Java from the best book
> on gnumake "Managing Projects with GNU make" by Robert Mecklenburg
>
> http://www.makelinux.net/make3/make3-CHP-9#make3-CHP-9

I did not see the advertized Makefile example but found this gem 
(quoting from that page):

"Code declared to be within the a.b.c package would be compiled to class 
files in the a/b/c directory. This means that make's normal algorithm 
for associating a binary file with its source fails."

Or did you mean this link?
http://www.makelinux.net/make3/make3-CHP-9-SECT-2

I am counting 200+ lines in this Makefile.  It inefficiently invokes 
javac on all Java sources and defines functions for things that ant can 
do out of the box.  As a consequence you have to search in different 
locations to find out which packages go into which jar file.  The same 
is probably 15% of the lines as an ant file.  Sorry, but that example is 
no advertisement for using make to build Java projects.

> Chapter 9 is all about using make for build Java.
>
> As others said. If you are using an IDE with its own build
> system. It is better to have your own makefile to build
> your tree, independent of what the IDE has. This way, if
> you changed IDE, or move your tree somewhere else where
> this IDE is not available, you can still build your tree
> any where.

Modern IDE's usually have integration with ant and / or maven and will 
happily generate appropriate build files.

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13824

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.  

Then there is a significant issue with being forced to learn an entirely new 
tool just because there might be a single thing that it might be able to 
handle in a simpler way, and then being forced to deal with a significant 
list of things where the new tool fails to perform.  Unfortunately, this 
appears to be an undistinguishing feature of every automated build system 
that has been released.


>> 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.


>> As long as the idea that drives the tool is: Perform this action
>> to update these prerequisites that this target depends on, then better
>> to use one tool that does this better and for many other things, not
>> just .java files.
> 
> Interestingly GNU make's large built in rule database does not contain
> anything related to compiling Java.  How do you create your Makefiles in
> a way as to invoke javac only for those files which have changed -
> especially in light of the fact that one Java source file might create
> multiple .class files?

Maybe build-in rules aren't needed, considering Make's static pattern rules.

http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Static-Pattern

<snip/>


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web