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

#13827

On 4/23/2012 3:15 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
> Maybe build-in rules aren't needed, considering Make's static pattern rules.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Static-Pattern
>


That's a good find, and I appreciate you pointing it out to this list. 
It's actually been several years since I've dealt with make's build 
rules in any way, and a small refresher wouldn't be bad for me.

However, in the Java world, ant is the standard build program.  (Or 
maven; however I haven't got into maven yet.)  There's no way you can 
avoid ant.  Any project that exists in Java, any deliverable you get 
from an outside contractor or firm, will invariably use ant.  It is 
simply "the standard."

So I'd recommend you learn to use it.  First, it avoids fumbling around 
making your own static rules, and second you will have to learn it 
eventually, regardless.  So it might as well be on your own terms, and 
on your own schedule.

I found ant's use of XML off-putting at first as well, but it becomes 
easier to deal with, and more natural to write, after you've hand 
written a couple of basic project definitions.  Just go for it, and 
don't sweat the new stuff you'll learn.

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

#13835

On 12-04-23 07:44 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 3:15 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>
>> Maybe build-in rules aren't needed, considering Make's static pattern
>> rules.
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Static-Pattern
>>
> 
> 
> That's a good find, and I appreciate you pointing it out to this list.
> It's actually been several years since I've dealt with make's build
> rules in any way, and a small refresher wouldn't be bad for me.
> 
> However, in the Java world, ant is the standard build program.  (Or
> maven; however I haven't got into maven yet.)  There's no way you can
> avoid ant.  Any project that exists in Java, any deliverable you get
> from an outside contractor or firm, will invariably use ant.  It is
> simply "the standard."
> 
[ SNIP ]

That's the main argument. It's the best argument. Proposing the use of
"make" in a typical Java shop will elicit the same reaction as if you
proposed the use of Ant to Haskell developers. "make" is a non-standard
tool in Java development, whereas Java IDE build systems, Ant and Maven
_are_ standard. I note the Java IDE build systems separately, because a
lot of developers don't use Ant or Maven, they just produce JARs or WARs
or EARs with their IDE.

This argument implies that it doesn't even really matter how many
problems Ant addressed viz "make" for Java builds, or how successfully
it addressed all of them, or even what extra cruft and complexity that
Ant itself now has. All that matters in 2012 is that Ant is a major
build standard for Java, and "make" isn't.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

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

#13887

 wrote:

> That's a good find, and I appreciate you pointing it out to this list.
> It's actually been several years since I've dealt with make's build
> rules in any way, and a small refresher wouldn't be bad for me.

Thanks. I'm glad I could help.  I was only aware of this because a while ago 
I happened to stumble on it while reading up on suffix rules.  It appears 
that nowadays there isn't a lot of people who write their own makefiles, 
instead relying on tools to generate scripts for tools that generate scripts 
for tools that...  So, this sort of stuff tends to be left in obscurity.


> However, in the Java world, ant is the standard build program.  (Or
> maven; however I haven't got into maven yet.)  There's no way you can
> avoid ant.  Any project that exists in Java, any deliverable you get
> from an outside contractor or firm, will invariably use ant.  It is
> simply "the standard."
> 
> So I'd recommend you learn to use it.  First, it avoids fumbling around
> making your own static rules, and second you will have to learn it
> eventually, regardless.  So it might as well be on your own terms, and
> on your own schedule.

I see what you mean.


> I found ant's use of XML off-putting at first as well, but it becomes
> easier to deal with, and more natural to write, after you've hand
> written a couple of basic project definitions.  Just go for it, and
> don't sweat the new stuff you'll learn.

The XML bit was really off-putting, mainly because XML is off-putting in 
general.  

One aspect where apache ant appears to be more helpful than make is the 
explicit support for setting up a project to handle compilation on a 
dedicated directory somewhere in the project tree.  This is also possible 
with make, but it requires a tiny bit of added work than simply pointing out 
a path. 


Thanks for the help,
Rui Maciel

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

#13889

On 4/24/2012 6:33 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> The XML bit was really off-putting, mainly because XML is off-putting in
> general.


You can copy the basic build file from the tutorial, and save it as a 
"template" for future build files.  You only have to change two strings 
normally to get it to work on a new project.


> One aspect where apache ant appears to be more helpful than make is the
> explicit support for setting up a project to handle compilation on a
> dedicated directory somewhere in the project tree.  This is also possible
> with make, but it requires a tiny bit of added work than simply pointing out
> a path.


Another thing that ant does is makes portability easier.  I develop on 
Windows.  Ant converts all paths with a '/' to the proper file separator 
for the local OS.  That's a nice feature if you've got a team switching 
between Unix and Windows.

There's other portability issues too, like using FileSets or PatternSets 
instead of relying on tools like ls, find and grep that might not be 
available on non-Unix systems.

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

#13831

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 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.  

You cannot make claim to being a Java programmer if you've never heard of Ant.

> 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 

Not Ant's problem. 

> appears to be an undistinguishing feature of every automated build system 
> that has been released.

Not Ant. Not that Ant is perfect, but it works as advertised.

You're full of fine generalities that simply do not apply to the Ant vs. make "debate".

>>> 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.

Also a benefit of Ant. Ant is extensible, unlike make. You can write new targets for it in Java.

>>> 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.

Not really. For one thing, Ant works better than make for Java, not the other way around. For another, Ant works on things besides Java. Come to think of it, your argument favors Ant over make.

>> 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 [sic] static pattern rules.

Or considering that Ant is better and more standard for the purpose.
 
> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Static-Pattern

-- 
Lew

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

#13847

Lew 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 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.
> 
> You cannot make claim to being a Java programmer if you've never heard of
> Ant.

Read up on "hyperbole".


>> 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
> 
> Not Ant's problem.

It isn't supposed to be ant's problem.  Yet, it doesn't make it an 
acceptable alternative for every conceivable scenario, let alone the ideal 
solution.  And that's precisely the point.


>> appears to be an undistinguishing feature of every automated build system
>> that has been released.
> 
> Not Ant. Not that Ant is perfect, but it works as advertised.
> 
> You're full of fine generalities that simply do not apply to the Ant vs.
> make "debate".

Your own admition that ant isn't perfect already demonstrates that we aren't 
dealing with mere "fine generalities", but with a matter of fact.  Just 
because ant may be "the devil you know" it doesn't mean that it is the 
perfect solution for everyone's problems, particularly those of us who 
happen to know other "devils" a bit better than they know ant.


>>>> 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.
> 
> Also a benefit of Ant. Ant is extensible, unlike make. You can write new
> targets for it in Java.

I don't understand.  Are you saying that it it impossible to add new targets 
to a makefile?


>>>> 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.
> 
> Not really. For one thing, Ant works better than make for Java, not the
> other way around. For another, Ant works on things besides Java. Come to
> think of it, your argument favors Ant over make.

You missed the point.  No one is claiming that ant is worse than make for 
Java projects, only that make can be used to build Java projects.


>>> 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 [sic] static
>> pattern rules.
> 
> Or considering that Ant is better and more standard for the purpose.

I don't believe it is reasonable to declare that make isn't standard for 
managing build processes.  

But again, the point is not that make, or any other tool, is supposed to be 
better or worse than ant at building Java projects; it's only if, and how, 
make can also be used to build Java projects.  And if make can be used to 
build Java projects then, for some people, and in some particular 
situations, no matter how superior ant might be, using make may still be the 
best option available for that particular task under those particular 
circumstances.  And I don't see how this fact can rile you that much, or 
anyone.


Rui Maciel

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

#13866

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:44:50 +0100, Rui Maciel wrote:

> It isn't supposed to be ant's problem.  Yet, it doesn't make it an
> acceptable alternative for every conceivable scenario, let alone the
> ideal solution.  And that's precisely the point.
>
Sure, but there scenarios where not knowing it is very definitely your 
problem. Here's a fairly common one: you join a project team where the 
project standards are enforced and they say Ant is the project build 
tool, but you don't know it. You may be cut some slack while you get up 
to speed on Ant but you may well find yourself out on your ear if you 
insist on using something else, e.g. make. As AJS says, if the project is 
about to hit a deadline your need to learn on the job will not make you 
popular with the PM or other team members if your reduced productivity 
while learning the tool causes a milestone to be missed.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#13908

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:23:00 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
<martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:44:50 +0100, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
>> It isn't supposed to be ant's problem.  Yet, it doesn't make it an
>> acceptable alternative for every conceivable scenario, let alone the
>> ideal solution.  And that's precisely the point.
>>
>Sure, but there scenarios where not knowing it is very definitely your 
>problem. Here's a fairly common one: you join a project team where the 
>project standards are enforced and they say Ant is the project build 
>tool, but you don't know it. You may be cut some slack while you get up 
>to speed on Ant but you may well find yourself out on your ear if you 
>insist on using something else, e.g. make. As AJS says, if the project is 
>about to hit a deadline your need to learn on the job will not make you 
>popular with the PM or other team members if your reduced productivity 
>while learning the tool causes a milestone to be missed.

     OTOH, knowing something else might help deal with the problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13998

On 4/24/2012 9:44 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew 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 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.
>>
>> You cannot make claim to being a Java programmer if you've never heard of
>> Ant.
>
> Read up on "hyperbole".

Read up on usenet.

>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Also a benefit of Ant. Ant is extensible, unlike make. You can write new
>> targets for it in Java.
>
> I don't understand.  Are you saying that it it impossible to add new targets
> to a makefile?

No.

He is saying that ant has a plugin architecture that allows
developers to create their own tasks.

Which you would know if you bothered to read about the tools you
are choosing between.

>>>> 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 [sic] static
>>> pattern rules.
>>
>> Or considering that Ant is better and more standard for the purpose.
>
> I don't believe it is reasonable to declare that make isn't standard for
> managing build processes.

Make is very much a standard for building C/C++ code and some other
languages.

But make is not a standard for building Java code.

And the topic is the second.

Arne

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

#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/

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

#13845

Robert Klemme wrote:

> 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.  

It was a hyperbole.

And surely you are aware that a considerable number of people who spend a 
portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their 
profession.


> Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead
> of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy.

It isn't.  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.


>> 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.

It isn't expected to.  That's the job for the compiler, which is called by 
the automated build tool.  

If I'm not mistaken, this is also what ant does.  Someone correct me if I'm 
wrong.
http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/javac.html


>> 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.

As you can imagine due to the fact that I've started this thread, I never 
managed to do this nor know how to pull this off.  The reason I said that 
maybe built-in rules aren't needed to build java programs with the make tool 
is the fact that it is quite possible to build software written in a number 
of programming languagea without relying on built-in rules.  

Nevertheless, after a quick google, I stumbled on a tutorial on how to 
"write and use makefiles to build java applications".  It doesn't rely on 
static pattern rules, and instead uses suffix rules.  I don't know how well 
this works, but you are free to give it a try and see if it doesn't work.

On a side note, I don't believe that the point is to prove that the make 
tool can be made to work better than alternatives such as ant, but only that 
it actually works.


Rui Maciel

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

#13846

Rui Maciel wrote:

> Nevertheless, after a quick google, I stumbled on a tutorial on how to
> "write and use makefiles to build java applications".

I forgot the link to the tutorial:

http://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~newhall/unixhelp/javamakefiles.html


Rui Maciel

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

#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 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.  
> 
> 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 
> portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their 
> profession.

Are you claiming that non-professionals should deliberately flout best practices, 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 programmer, professional or otherwise, without having heard of Ant or being more 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.
> 
> It isn't.  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.

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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> It isn't expected to.  That's the job for the compiler, which is called by 
> the automated build tool.  
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, this is also what ant does.  Someone correct me if I'm 
> 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
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> As you can imagine due to the fact that I've started this thread, I never 
> managed to do this nor know how to pull this off.  The reason I said that 
> maybe built-in rules aren't needed to build java programs with the make tool 
> is the fact that it is quite possible to build software written in a number 
> of programming languagea without relying on built-in rules.  
> 
> Nevertheless, after a quick google, I stumbled on a tutorial on how to 
> "write and use makefiles to build java applications".  It doesn't rely on 
> static pattern rules, and instead uses suffix rules.  I don't know how well 
> this works, but you are free to give it a try and see if it doesn't work.
> 
> On a side note, I don't believe that the point is to prove that the make 
> tool can be made to work better than alternatives such as ant, but only that 
> it actually works.

It would have to be better to justify its use, since Ant is the standard. As it happens, make is worse for Java projects than make, so that's a huge strike against it. 

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.

-- 
Lew

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

#13884

Lew wrote:

> 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
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> It was a hyperbole.
> 
> And we were supposed to know that how...?
> 
> I see no exaggeration in your comment at all.

You already shown that you have a bit of a problem in basing your arguments 
and criticism on unfounded assumptions.  In this case, you even choosed to 
ignore that the example I gave was between "tool A" and "tool B", not make 
and ant, which certainly no one else had any trouble understanding that it 
was purely figurative.


>> And surely you are aware that a considerable number of people who spend a
>> portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their
>> profession.
> 
> Are you claiming that non-professionals should deliberately flout best
> practices, simply because they don't make a living at it?

I made no such claim. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to pin on 
me these wild claims you are making up as you go along.


> The main point here, which you're ducking, is that no one can be a Java
> programmer, professional or otherwise, without having heard of Ant or
> being more than superficially aware of it. Your statement about being
> "unaware that tool B even existed" is utterly irrelevant to this issue.

This is not nor it ever was the main point. Nor a side note, even.  You 
knack for making wild assumptions led you to make this stuff up.  If you 
have any doubt then simply point out exactly where anyone besides yourself 
ever mentioned anything remotely similar to that.


>> > Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead
>> > of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy.
>> 
>> It isn't.  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.
> 
> This isn't a case of that, so why mention it?

Frankly, that's what every single one of those blokes on the internet says.

As a warning, I should inform you that this was also a hyperbole.


> It would have to be better to justify its use, since Ant is the standard.

By your reasoning, you should be using make as it is actually the standard 
in the real sense of the word.  ISO standard and all.  Instead, it appears 
you are hell-bent on criticising make. 


> As it happens, make is worse for Java projects than make, so that's a huge
> strike against it.
> 
> 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.

Again with your unfounded assumptions and baseless accusations.  Can you 
point out exactly where anyone stated that they refused to learn how to use 
ant or even maven?  You can't, because no one, besides you with your wild 
imagination, ever said it. 

So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.  Either way, you are 
not helpful.  So, if you don't have anything helpful to add then go waste 
your time and your wild imagination elsewhere.

Rui Maciel

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

#13891

On 04/25/2012 03:09 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.

Ad hominem isn't really helpful either...

>  Either way, you are
> not helpful.  So, if you don't have anything helpful to add then go waste
> your time and your wild imagination elsewhere.

Lew is usually pretty good at exhibiting the weak points of an argument. 
  People tend to not like to hear that, but it is totally possible that 
they waste good advice that way...

Kind regards

	robert

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

#13896

Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 04/25/2012 03:09 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.
> 
> Ad hominem isn't really helpful either...

In this case it's not ad hominem.  If he is basing his complaints on 
something he believes he read instead of what has been actually written. 
This inability to comprehend what has been read is, by definition, 
functional illiteracy, and someone who suffers from this problem is a 
functinal illiterate.

On the other hand, if he actually read and was able to understand what he 
wrote then his repeated intention to willingly misrepresent what others have 
said is both dishonest and provocative; hence, the troll.

So, as this was not about "negating the truth" but just a case of calling a 
spade a spade, this was no ad hominem.

But I agree this is a a waste of time, and completely unhelpful.


Rui Maciel

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

#13997

On 4/25/2012 7:18 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> On 04/25/2012 03:09 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.
>>
>> Ad hominem isn't really helpful either...
>
> In this case it's not ad hominem.

It certainly is.

 >                                    If he is basing his complaints on
> something he believes he read instead of what has been actually written.
> This inability to comprehend what has been read is, by definition,
> functional illiteracy, and someone who suffers from this problem is a
> functinal illiterate.
>
> On the other hand, if he actually read and was able to understand what he
> wrote then his repeated intention to willingly misrepresent what others have
> said is both dishonest and provocative; hence, the troll.
>
> So, as this was not about "negating the truth" but just a case of calling a
> spade a spade, this was no ad hominem.

It is a personal attack with absolute no substance in.

A textbook example of ad hominem.

Arne

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

#13894

Rui Maciel wrote:
> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.  Either way, you are
> not helpful.  So, if you don't have anything helpful to add then go waste
> your time and your wild imagination elsewhere.

Plonk.

Too bad for you.

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

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

#13909

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:01:20 -0700, Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote:

>Rui Maciel wrote:
>> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.  Either way, you are
>> not helpful.  So, if you don't have anything helpful to add then go waste
>> your time and your wild imagination elsewhere.
>
>Plonk.
>
>Too bad for you.

     Please plonk me, too.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13999

On 4/24/2012 9:09 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>>> And surely you are aware that a considerable number of people who spend a
>>> portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their
>>> profession.
>>
>> Are you claiming that non-professionals should deliberately flout best
>> practices, simply because they don't make a living at it?
>
> I made no such claim. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to pin on
> me these wild claims you are making up as you go along.

Well - you posted it in this thread.

Lew just make the mistake of assuming that you posted it with a purpose.

You can prevent that type of mistakes by not posting
irrelevant comments.

>>>> Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead
>>>> of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy.
>>>
>>> It isn't.  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.
>>
>> This isn't a case of that, so why mention it?
>
> Frankly, that's what every single one of those blokes on the internet says.
>
> As a warning, I should inform you that this was also a hyperbole.

Stop posting irrelevant info.

>> It would have to be better to justify its use, since Ant is the standard.
>
> By your reasoning, you should be using make as it is actually the standard
> in the real sense of the word.  ISO standard and all.  Instead, it appears
> you are hell-bent on criticising make.

I don't think he or anybody else criticized make.

It is just not a good tool for building Java.

But since make is not supposed to be used for building Java, then
that is not criticism of make.

>> As it happens, make is worse for Java projects than make, so that's a huge
>> strike against it.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Again with your unfounded assumptions and baseless accusations.  Can you
> point out exactly where anyone stated that they refused to learn how to use
> ant or even maven?  You can't, because no one, besides you with your wild
> imagination, ever said it.

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.

Either that was about ant or it was irrelevant for the thread.

Arne

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

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

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

csiph-web