"Mark S. Miller" wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I don't understand what this means.
I mean you point ant at the tree and it works out what needs doing.
> At 04:31 AM 6/3/00 , Ben Laurie wrote:
> >Paul Snively wrote:
> > > on 6/2/00 11:10 AM, Mark S. Miller at markm@caplet.com wrote:
> > > > [...], is there any reason to
> > > > prefer Ant to bash?
> > >
> > > My only reason is that I can run Ant on MacOS and not bash.
> >
> >Ah yes - and on Windoze, too. And it knows about the different Java
> >compilers...
>
> bash does run on Windoze too.
Yeah, but you already have to have Java.
> I don't understand the comment about different Java compilers.
If you use Jikes, say, it adjusts the command line to match.
Cheers,
Ben.
-- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html Coming to ApacheCon Europe 2000? http://apachecon.com/