On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Paul Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm afraid I was only evaluating ant+cpptask (as well as other tools) > in order to find the best tool for my project. Unfortunately > ant+cpptask didn't win, and so I didn't spend any more time on it.
Care to share a bit more info? Choice of tools is indeed very dependent on the project. For me at one point, since I was building lots of Java projects with Ant, it was natural to invest time into CppTasks to build the associated JNI native libs, rather than use another build tool (and then I used it for large C++ projects too, since I had it going). But I agree that CppTasks is (a) hard to get started with, and (b) doesn't allow you to easily control the path to find an executable, (c) doesn't have a community nor much dev activity. But a great advantage of CppTasks is that it provides you with very reliable *incremental* builds, because it does automatic dependency management, tracks build options, etc... In my experience, this is *very* useful (especially for large projects), and *quite rare* in build tools. That's why I think Ant+CppTasks has more "depth" than many other build tools ;-) What can I say, I was a fan of it! :))) --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
