On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Antoine Levy Lambert <anto...@gmx.de> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> I agree its time to move away from "make without make's wrinkles" and >> prefer a description that says what Ant is rather than what it is not. >> Your draft does so pretty well. > > Thanks
+1 from me too, and your first draft is a good step forward. >> Personally I don't see any reason to compare Ant with any other tool >> from the same domain at all, YMMV. > I would like to put the most famous or significant tools in perspective, > explaining how they differ in scope and in philosophy, rather than comparing > them in the sense of saying which tool is better, which each user/project can > decide for him/herself. Maybe this topic should go on its own separate page ? I also don't think we should not delve too much into explaining the other tools' differing philosophies. Adding a note that there exist many alternative tools that reuse the tasks/types, Ant's primary asset indeed, and mentioning those explicitly with hyper-linked names is fine and useful, but lets stay out of controversial debate about those tools vs Ant. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
