Java 1.3

[Mark S. Miller]

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?
Would layering a specialized surface syntax on Ant indeed greatly improve 
it, or am I misunderstanding the nature of the tool?

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?


         Cheers,
         --MarkM