Dominique Devienne wrote:
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
OK. The build tools in perspective should go to a separate web site.
Maybe one day I will create a blog.
Regards,
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
