"Mark S. Miller" wrote:
>
> At 10:39 AM 6/2/00 , Ben Laurie wrote:
> >Speaking from experience, Ant is substantially easier to maintain than
> >make.
>
> Ok, I'll certainly take your experience over my off the cuff reaction. But
> WHY did they make it so unreadable? What do they gain by basing it on XML?
They're all XML fiends ... seems to go with Java!
> Would layering a specialized surface syntax on Ant indeed greatly improve
> it, or am I misunderstanding the nature of the tool?
So write a converter for your favourite syntax.
> In any case, the alternative I'm considering is just bash without make.
> Given that incremental re-making isn't an issue, is there any reason to
> prefer Ant to bash?
It finds all the classes for you.
Cheers,
Ben.
-- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html Coming to ApacheCon Europe 2000? http://apachecon.com/