[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] make vs ?
From: |
Zenaan Harkness |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] make vs ? |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:41:00 +1000 |
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 18:31, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2004, at 23:15, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
> > I've looked (barely) at ant (Java), however the XML config/ script
> > seems
> > to be a little, ... verbose. If someone can compare make with ant, that
> > would be useful.
>
> ant is verbose for some things, but saves a tremendous amount of
> typing for others. It's not so much the syntax that makes ant good,
> it's the tasks that are built-in that help you with the exact things
> you want want to do. The javac task, for example, knows how to look
> for code and build it into another directory. The jar task knows how
> to assemble things from different parts of your tree into a jar
> (including filename mapping so you can have some stuff included from
> your source tree and some from your build tree, but have them look the
> same).
>
> It's definitely worth spending a bit of time with if you have a lot of
> java projects. Certain things in make are a bit easier the first time
> (i.e. making a new transformation rule for something fairly simple),
> but if you do end up having to write a task for something (not very
> common), there is quite a bit you can do, and quite a bit it'll do for
> you.
>
> I wouldn't expect to be able to convince you, though. I thought the
> pain of having to write build scripts in xml would be unbearable until
> I actually gave it a go. It's almost worth it just for the classpath
> handling. At least check out the manual
> (http://ant.apache.org/manual/index.html) and check out the tasks that
> are available out of the box. Adding new collections of tasks is
> typically as easy as adding a jar to your classpath and pulling in all
> of the stuff it has to offer as a single line. But again, besides my
> own weird custom code generators, I've only had to do this once (and I
> think it was last week). :)
Thanks - that's useful information.
I have a pretty clear setup at the moment - including things like
out-of-tree building, including some src/ as well as build/ files,
and I like to have a close control over these aspects. My suspicion
is that "packages" that do this stuff for me will either "encourage"
me to use particular layouts/ solution, and/ or require me to
learn more just to get what I want out of it. Of course, the same
might be the case with make...
ta
zen